Royal Assent

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act 2007,
	Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Act 2007.

Railways: Ticket Refunds

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why there is a £10 charge for refunding rail tickets purchased online, but not for refunding tickets purchased at stations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow an administrative fee to be charged when a ticket is refunded. The cost is normally £10. It makes no difference whether the ticket was bought at a booking office, by phone or on the internet. No administrative fee is charged when trains are delayed or cancelled and the passenger decides not to travel on their outward journey as a consequence.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I am sure he is aware that most booking offices will refund tickets if they are returned pretty quickly and were bought at the same station. Is it not a bit odd that you do not have to pay a fee for a refund at a booking office, but you do on the web when the cost of transaction on the web must be very small compared with the cost of running a booking office?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that it is a discretionary charge, but that a charge is made and it makes little difference whether you bought a ticket at a booking office, by phone or over the internet. I also understand that the charge has remained £10 for at least the past decade, if not longer, so it is a very small administrative fee. However, it is down to the train operator.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister reflect on the fact that although some train operators are paying the Government a premium, they are all heavily subsidised through the money the Government give Network Rail? Is it not about time that some of these train companies took account of the views of the public instead of hiding behind regulations of that sort?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a matter for the train companies, not for the Government. During the time in which we have been in government, increases in regulated fares have been limited and in real terms they are lower than they used to be. The fares system is very varied, as we well understand, but there are plans to simplify it in response to public opinion.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the Minister said that the charge was "discretionary". Will he explain exactly what that means? Do I have the discretion of not paying it if I am in that position?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be quite nice, would it not, if we could all not pay discretionary charges? It is very much down to how the train operating companies operate the scheme. It is called a discretionary charge. My understanding is that it is an administrative fee.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is it not the case that 11 train operating companies do not charge £10, but £5 for a refund? Is that not in marked contrast with the practice exercised by airlines—for example, British Airways charges £30 to refund a non-flexible ticket which is cancelled, and airlines such as easyJet and Ryanair have no refund arrangement?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that has been my experience in these matters.

EU Committee: Scrutiny Reserve

Lord Lucas: asked the Leader of the House:
	Whether, in light of the number of occasions on which the European Union Committee scrutiny reserve has been over-ridden in recent years, she has proposals to change the procedures relating to the reserve.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, no. The scrutiny reserve exercises an important discipline on the Government, which they do not over-ride lightly. Whenever the Government over-ride the scrutiny, the responsible Minister accounts for it to the committee and the House, as required by the scrutiny reserve resolution. The Government continue to work with the European Union Committee to improve the management of the scrutiny process to minimise the risk of an over-ride.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, does not a 7 per cent rate of over-ride perhaps indicate that we are not being as effective as we might be, or that the Government are not being as co-operative as they might be, in making sure that we give proper scrutiny to European legislation? If that is not so and these over-rides are justified, might we ask committee chairmen to say so in their reports, rather than leaving us to speculate that we are falling down on the job?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my understanding is that the rate of over-rides in this House is about 6 per cent. It is not always possible to synchronise the Westminster and Brussels timetables, particularly where you have fast-moving instruments. I understand from being briefed on the Question that 25 per cent of recent over-rides have been in the area of common foreign and security policy and that 20 per cent occurred during the parliamentary Recess. The Government are in constant discussion with the chairs of the European Union Committee and its sub-committees, because it is important that the process works not only for Parliament but also for the Government.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that every time the Government sign up to something in Brussels while it is still under scrutiny by a Select Committee, they are asserting that it is more important to stick to a timetable set in Brussels than to honour their undertakings to this House? That is what we are really talking about. Of the 22 over-rides that took place when Britain had the presidency and some control over the agenda, how many related to matters that were urgent and brooked no delay? If they were not urgent, why did Britain proceed with them?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am pleased to report to the House that the European Union Committee and the Government see this as a joint responsibility. For example, the committee has acknowledged that it has a responsibility to help to prevent unnecessary over-rides in the way in which it manages its work. It has also accepted that there have been difficulties when Parliament is in recess. Noble Lords will know that in this House the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, does a sift during the Recess precisely to prevent that kind of thing from happening. So it is a joint responsibility between the committee and the Government; it is not a one-way street.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I think that I heard my name mentioned a moment ago. Does the noble Baroness agree that, since the Cabinet Office decided about two and a half years ago to publish which department was responsible for each over-ride, the figures show that the so-called naming and shaming has occasioned a downward trend in the number of over-rides, which is very satisfactory? Does she accept that there are occasions when it is perfectly understandable why there should be an over-ride, because individual Council formations have a habit of changing their programmes and timetables and sometimes it is not possible to meet them? Does she further agree that the fact that the European Union Committee publishes in its annual report a full list of the over-rides and the reason for them has made the whole system much more transparent?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the system is much more transparent and that there is greater accountability. I think that the publication of individual departments helps the process. It also helps that individual departments plan more appropriately than they have in the past. However, I also agree with the noble Lord that there are occasions when over-rides will happen.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not be helpful if we in this country—Parliament and government—adopted the Danish system, which mandates Ministers before they come to decisions rather than agreeing or disagreeing with them after the decisions have been made?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that we all accept that, in negotiations, it is important that Ministers have a degree of flexibility.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that prompt responses from the Government to the European Union Select Committee of the House of Lords would assist in reducing the number of over-rides? Is she aware that the committee has recently experienced long delays in replies to this correspondence?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware that there was a significant issue with respect to responding to correspondence from the EU Select Committee. I am happy to look at that in detail and report back to the House.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the scrutiny committees of either House have made any difference to the relentless progress of European integration over the past 30 years? Will she confirm that the scrutiny committees can only do just that: they can scrutinise, debate and report but, after a matter may have been debated, the reserve is automatically lifted? Dare I ask her what the point is of the whole exercise?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that Members of this House would agree that the point of the whole exercise is that Parliament has an important and valuable role to play in this process. We all know that the decision taken by the people of this country when they agreed through a referendum our membership of the European Community is not one with which the noble Lord concurs.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that in one of the areas to which she referred where there are rather a lot of over-rides—that of common foreign and security policy—there have recently been improvements in the scrutiny procedures, with new instructions circulated in the Ministry of Defence? Does she agree that it would be wise to consider that again after a year or so to see whether it is reducing the number of over-rides?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am very happy to agree with that proposal. We should look at all ways of continuing to improve the scrutiny process. Where appropriate, we should review those mechanisms because, as I said in answer to an earlier question, this is about a partnership between the European Union Committee and the Government.

Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that there is a great deal of public confidence in the scrutiny procedures, not least as carried out by this House? Does she agree that, in dealing with questions of Europe, Parliament is the best forum for examining and judging those issues?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course Parliament is a very important forum for examining these issues. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the European Union Committee not only has an extremely valuable role to play but is extraordinarily well respected, not only in this House but elsewhere, because of the way in which it carries out that role.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, although I am sure that my noble friend cannot possibly have the figures in the papers in front of her, will she confirm that, in general terms, the influence of the European Union Committee and sub-committees has been significant and that, more often than not, the Government have accepted the bulk of the various committees' recommendations, which in turn have influenced the way in which the Government negotiate in Brussels?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I confirm that the committee has a great deal of influence. The Government always look very carefully at its proposals and recommendations because of the experience and expertise of its members.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, how do we compare with other member states?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have absolutely no idea from the figures in front of me, but given how we conduct our business in the European Union I expect that we are doing very well.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the referendum held in the 1970s was on our remaining in a common market of some six countries, which is totally different from the European Union as it is today?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the European Union of today, which is a union of 27 countries rather than six, is of course very different, but the benefits of membership of the European Union are understood by the vast majority of people in this country.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as the Minister was good enough to mention the referendum of 1975, when, as my noble friend said, the British people voted to stay in what they were assured was a common market, will she say whether we gain any small light of hope that the Government may be contemplating a referendum on what is about to be signed up to next weekend and at the subsequent intergovernmental conference?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord should know better than to read into what I say today what I will be saying specifically in response to questions on the Statement that I shall repeat next week; I have no doubt that he will be here then. The Government's position on the constitutional treaty is absolutely clear. We are in the midst of negotiations, and I know that the noble Lord would not expect me to pre-empt their outcome in any way.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Regulations

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many new regulations the Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has introduced since 2001.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, since 2001, the department has introduced 846 statutory instruments, which includes those introduced by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food up to June 2001.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, in response to a Question for Written Answer I was told that there have been some 750 general and local statutory instruments since 2001. Is he not concerned that the department does not have a central base so that it can tell how many of those statutory instruments were revoked, how many were new, and how many were just abandoned? Is it simply because, as I understand it, the different technologies do not talk to each other? I presume that the information was held manually in the past.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall look again at the Question for Written Answer. I did not realise that there had been a problem. There is no difficulty finding the answer. Some of the 846 statutory instruments are general operating instruments governing things such as fees. Some actually abolish dozens of statutory instruments. For example, the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2005 abolished and repealed 49 separate statutory instruments. There is no difficulty getting the information.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, do the Government intend to revoke the regulation governing the protection of badgers?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. The Government are not giving a detailed response today. We issued a Written Statement following the report of the independent scientific group this morning, and we will consider the matter in due course.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister confident that the amount of information passed to farmers is sufficient, especially for those who are not online and therefore have difficulty in understanding some of the regulations?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know and fully accept that the regulations can get complicated. Farmers who are online gain from the whole-farm approach. Based on the current uptake, farmers will save £3 million by 2009-10. We are trying to simplify statutory instruments and a simplification programme is under way to look at 130 aspects. The Environmental Permitting Programme will replace 40 statutory instruments on waste with a single instrument which will be one-third of the length of the 40.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, the issue is not just the plethora of new rules but also the fragmentation and duplication of Defra's administration. I farm in Norfolk. On my way here today, I counted at least10 Defra offices with which we in Norfolk have to deal. Heaven help you if there is a marginal difference between your calculation of a field size and Defra's. It will hold up your entire payment for months until it is resolved. With this fragmentation, getting a response out of Defra is like dealing with the Tower of Babel. Is it not high time that farmers had one point of contact with Defra in order to deal with all aspects of a farm's activities? There then might be a chance of it becoming fit for purpose.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I reject that. I was at the headquarters of the Rural Payments Agency in Reading this morning looking at exactly what happens in the service that is given to farmers. It is true that the culture is different. In the past, farmers went to Defra offices where Defra staff filled in their forms for them, which is where part of the cultural change comes about. I do not know about the10 Defra offices. I invite the House, as I invite everyone who is either on the farm or in the office, to tell me of an order or a regulation that we should not do, we do not need to do or are not legally required to do and we will see whether we can get it abolished. No one ever comes back with a positive proposal.
	If noble Lords go to the Printed Paper Office they will see another Defra reform, which is not on my list so it is additional. The Regulatory Reform (Game) Order abolishes nine items of the Game Act 1831, repeals the Game Licences Act 1860, reduces a lot of the burdens and effectively abolishes game licence for fishmongers, farmers and others who have had to go through that plethora of regulation. It is another success.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I have been given an example by farmers in Cornwall recently. There are more regulations controlling the burial of a lamb than for the burial of a human being, which surely must be an eccentric position. Will the Minister comment on the fact that his department is notorious for gold-plating European regulations when they are introduced into this country in a way which other countries in Europe do not have? Is there still within the department any mechanism by which Ministers can take responsibility for that gold-plating? Is he aware that Mr Douglas Hogg, the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had such a mechanism and gave evidence about that to a committee of this House? However, it would seem that two days after he left office, that mechanism was removed.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the same mechanism or the function is carried on. In November 2006, we published Maximising Outcomes, Minimising Burdens. It was aDefra simplification plan for a slash-and-burn policy. I have given evidence to a committee of this House that we do not seek to double-regulate. Indeed, we have to be very careful with our regulatory agencies that they do not over-regulate or double-regulate. That is not our intention. However, I fully appreciate that when you are the farmer and are on the receiving end of different regulations from different bodies that impinge on you, it looks incredibly complicated, and we have to do what we can to simplify that.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Liberals who have just called these regulations gold-plated are the same people who call for the regulations to be tightened when there is an outbreak of salmonella, E.coli or anything similar?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we regulate not for the sake of it but to protect the environment, human and animal health. We do it sometimes on our own and at other times in conjunction with our European partners.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, have the Government taken any action to prevent the spread of bluetongue disease, which is prevalent on the Continent and is threatening to invade this country?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to that is yes. Procedures are in place and we are concerned about this disease. It would be very serious if it did come to this country. I can assure the noble Lord and others that the animal health section of the department is actively working on it.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, is there a simple way for a farmer who is not online and does not go through Hansard and Halsbury's Statutes with a fine-tooth comb to know at a glance whether there is delegated legislation which might or might not affect his situation?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, there is. If a farmer is farming, presumably he will be in touch with the relevant offices of Natural England and other bodies. Many farmers will be registered for the single farm payment, though not all. I met a farmer last week at the Three Counties Show who did not bother for his 14 acres, saying, "I don't think we should have subsidies and it is not worth it". On the other hand, this morning I saw maps of a farm that has had almost a motorway carved through it, cutting three fields in half, but the farmer has still put in a claim for whole fields. The case is necessarily being looked at, of course. Procedures are in place, and all farmers have to do is ask. My department is there to help, and plenty of free material is available to assist farmers in making sure that they are following the rules.

Israel and Palestine: Academic Co-operation

Lord Winston: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Turnberg, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
	What steps they are taking to support academic co-operation between universities in the United Kingdom, Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories in support of the Middle East peace process.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, before answering, perhaps I may say on behalf of the House how sad we are to hear of the family tragedy which has led to my noble friend Lord Turnberg not being in his place today. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.
	The Government deplore any proposals for an academic boycott. My honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education visited Israel and east Jerusalem last week and he made that clear. He also announced our intention to hold a seminar in London involving UK, Israeli and Palestinian academics to promote understanding and collaboration. This builds on much-respected work by the British Council, including the Chevening scholarships, which benefit young Palestinians and Israelis.

Lord Winston: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Turnberg I thank the Minister for his kind condolences, which will of course be conveyed to him. I thank the Minister also for the sensitivity of his Answer on this difficult question. Does he not agree with my noble friend that to target academics in this way is not only anti-academic; it also targets the very people who are most likely to help in a liberal answer to the peace process in the Middle East?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend; his sentiments echo precisely those of Her Majesty's Government. As my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for universities said last week when he was in Israel:
	"Not only would a boycott be inconsistent with the spirit of openness and tolerance that should inform public life. It would also be counterproductive. Education plays a vital role in developing and aiding understanding between different people. It is therefore all the more important to keep open channels of communication with academics and educational institutions in the Middle East during these difficult times".
	Given the events of the past week, I think that that becomes more true by the day.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former international governor of the University of Haifa, which at that time had the highest number of Arab students of any university in Israel. I thoroughly endorse the sentiments that the Minister has just expressed. As I am sure he would reiterate, the most liberal institutions in Israel today are the universities. I am grateful to him for saying that further efforts are being made to encourage partnerships between Israeli and Palestinian universities, as that can only be to the good.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely endorse the noble Lord's sentiments: we need to strengthen co-operation in this area. I hope that the seminar which my honourable friend intends to bring together will play a part in that process, too.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, last Tuesday we had a debate in this House on anti-Semitism which focused on this very question. The debate was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—who unfortunately is not in her place—and everyone who spoke made the point that this boycott is unacceptable. What are the Government doing to make known to UCU and other bodies the real outpouring from this House on the issue?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in last week's debate I gave the clearest possible statement of the Government's position on the proposed boycott—but, of more direct relevance, so did my noble friend Lady Warwick, the chief executive of Universities UK. She clearly stated the university world's complete opposition to a boycott of the kind being proposed, and she informed the House in the strongest possible terms of the statements that she and Professor Drummond Bone, the president of UUK, have made in respect of it. I believe that the voice of the House was heard loud and clear in the university community last week, and my noble friend Lady Warwick will have conveyed the sentiments expressed to vice-chancellors.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, without pre-empting whatever the Government may have to say later today in their Statement on Gaza, I totally support the opposition to an academic boycott and what the Minister has said about keeping lines open to the Middle East. But does he agree that there is a very stark contrast here with the way in which the Government and the quartet have boycotted the democratically elected Government who contained Hamas members and with the subsequent disastrous effect on the economy of Gaza, where 90 per cent of the population rely on food aid?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's views and the strength of feeling that he has represented to the House, but my noble friend Lady Royall will be making a full Statement on these issues later, and I think it is best if I leave it to her to reply.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews. Does the Minister agree that if any academic seminar is to be worth while, it needs to address at some stage the serious and complex issues that relate to the theology of land in the Middle East, most particularly in Israel? Until those issues are addressed, the fine line which exists between concerns about Israeli policy and where they begin to merge into anti-Semitism is a serious one, deserving of the most stringent academic exploration.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I think that the right reverend Prelate has just made an opening contribution to the seminar that my honourable friend will be summoning.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords—

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Benches behind me.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I express my interest as chairman of Weizmann UK. Two weeks ago, the Hebrew University awarded PhDs to its students. Among them were several Arabs, many of whom were women. Does this not show that the behaviour of the Israeli universities is very much to encourage Arabs in their midst?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, we will have a Statement repeated today; the subject, as we have just heard, is the Gaza Strip. It will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Royall, and we shall take it after the Report stage of the statistics Bill.

Sustainable Communities Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Statistics and Registration Service Bill

Report received.
	Clause 3 [Members]:

Lord Dearing: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
	"(d) one person who is appointed by the Cabinet Office after consulting the Local Government Association."

Lord Dearing: My Lords, in Committee, I ventured three amendments. I have pared those down to one, and in coming forward with it I have recognised that in its previous form it reached too far. I am now proposing simply that before one of the members of the board is appointed, the Cabinet Office should consult the Local Government Association.
	In making that amendment, I am glad to say thatI am not creating any precedent for such communication. The amendment follows exactly the form of the provision already in the Bill about consultation over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It reflects the need to see that appropriate statistical information is available for democratically elected bodies which have major responsibilities for public money. In the case of the local authorities in England, we are talking about 26 per cent of public expenditure, amounting to £100 billion a year. If healthcare and some other public services were added, that figure would be increased.
	There may be those who think that if the Local Government Association is to be consulted on behalf of local authorities, what about others? I am far from being against the principle of consultation—indeed, it would be an advantage to consult industry, commerce and academia. However, that is not to say that people who are appointed after consultation with Welsh, Scottish, Irish or local government interests are ignorant of other matters. They may be very well informed. Nor would the amendment preclude the Government appointing more than the minimum number of members provided for in the Bill. I single out local authorities because they are democratically elected and, through their membership, have a good understanding of the needs of other sectors of activity because of their very wide statutory responsibilities.
	Finally, let me be clear that I am not proposing that the board should collect information every five minutes on any great new scale to provide information for local authorities. Nor am I proposing a specific duty on the board. The decision on what is appropriate and practical to collect will remain with the board, without any proposed amendment of its responsibilities, functions or duties. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that there is somebody on the board who, in the light of consultations with the LGA, has considerable knowledge of the needs for information below national level in England to help ensure that the £100 billion for whose expenditure local authorities are responsible is spent in a joined-up way to good effect on the basis of reasonably up-to-date information.
	To illustrate what is potentially available from such a modest amendment, a 1 per cent improvement in the effectiveness of the way in which local authorities spend money would be worth £1 billion. An improvement of 0.1 per cent would be worth £100 million. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment, along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It is relevant to think about the policy background, particularly the growing realisation that many aspects of public policy are best delivered at regional or, more often, local level. Indeed, the incoming Prime Minister has made a number of speeches to this effect. One can think of a number of policy areas where it makes sense to have the maximum amount of discretion to work together across public policies to deliver goals which are widely accepted as desirable. One example of the need for joined-up thinking is the Every Child Matters agenda which, by its very nature, requires local authorities to pull together a raft of services to make sure that children are better provided for. Another example, which is currently in vogue, is community cohesion. There is no simple bit of local government that is responsible; there needs to be joined-up thinking. For local authorities to do that work, they need the best-possible statistics. Statistics which simply show national trends are all very well, but they cannot be treated as a reliable indication of what is happening in a local authority area.
	A major source of disquiet, as your Lordships will be aware, relates to immigration statistics in London. I have a copy of a letter which Councillor Merrick Cockell, who is chairman of London Councils, sent last month to the Financial Secretary. He expressed in it his concern that the new methodology of the Office for National Statistics for estimating numbers of international migrants in London is simply inadequate. Local authorities in London which have undertaken surveys on the number of migrants have found that over time their estimates have increasingly diverged from those provided by the ONS. Without trying to determine today who is right in this argument, I should make the point that there are major issues surrounding statistics which need adequately to be addressed at local level. The ONS does its best on them, but, according to the local authorities involved, it sometimes fails to produce the work which they require. The way in which the legislation for the Statistics Board is framed looks very much towards Ministers rather than local areas. In those circumstances, it is relatively easy for the board to concentrate its efforts on looking at the statistics that are produced at national level and showing secondary concern for statistics that are produced at local level, important though they may be. Many local statistics are official, but not national, so there is an additional problem even in getting them looked at.
	The amendment simply ensures that there is a member of the board who is cognisant of the ways of local government and who can bear it in mind when taking decisions. It is a worthwhile proposal, and I hope that the Minister will support it.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I had thought that I might address the issue on which the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Newby, have spoken during discussion on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, to be moved in a few moments by noble friend Lady Noakes. However, in view of what they have said, perhaps I may add a word about the importance of these statistics to local authorities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, laid great stress on the value of the statistics to local authorities in doing their work, but the anxiety which has been raised with me—I declare an interest as a joint president of London Councils, which represents all the borough councils in London—is primarily about the measure of the grants that are paid to local authorities. I have the advantage of reading—I assure noble Lords that I do not intend to read more than a few sentences of it—the report that lies behind the letter from Councillor Merrick Cockell that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, quoted.
	It is one of the very best reports from London Councils that I have read in several years. Headed, "Population Measures and Grant Distribution", it contains a sentence of which the House should be aware. It states:
	"The importance of population figures in the distribution of grant coupled with the move to population projections,"—
	which is now proposed—
	"the rapid and increasing scale and changing characteristics of international migration following the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the large differences between 1991-based local population estimates and the 2001 Census, and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) project to improve estimates of international migration have brought population issues to the forefront".
	Lower down, the report says that,
	"there is mounting evidence from alternative estimates, the Statistics Commission, the Audit Commission, the Governor of the Bank of England"—
	I may return to that later—
	"and the ONS that suggests that the population estimates significantly underestimate the scale of international in-migration nationally".
	That has huge financial consequences for local authorities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has said, not least in London, where it is believed that a great majority of those who come from overseas initially settle. This poses very great burdens on London local authorities, which have to provide various local authority services for these people, including housing and education, when they get nothing or very little of additional grant in recognition of the burdens being imposed on them.
	The point being made by the amendment is that what we are discussing is of enormous importance to local authorities, and it is one that I would very strongly endorse. I am as yet unclear as to whether appointing a member representing local authorities to the Statistics Board is the right way in which to deal with this; there are so many other interests that have concerns about statistics for which the board will be responsible.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board that the importance of population statistics has been enormously enhanced for local authorities both because of the increasing in-migration and migration within the country and because of the effect that this has on grants paid by the Government to local authorities. That is something that needs addressing urgently and thoroughly if local authority concerns are to begin to be alleviated.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the amendment would add another category of consultee to Clause 3(4), but our preference would be not to have that subsection at all. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, there is a problem as to where it should end with regard to which bodies you consult. The most important thing is that the Statistics Board includes excellent people, who will lay the foundations for an independent board committed to excellence in public statistics and restoring trust in those statistics. Any mention of a consultation, albeit that it falls short of representativeness, runs the risk of tokenism. To that extent, we are unsure about adding to the list, although we completely understand the logic of what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, proposed.
	As my noble friend Lord Jenkin pointed out, I have tried to address the undoubted needs of local government to be reflected in the work of the Statistics Board in the Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which I shall come later. We sympathise completely with what lies at the heart of the noble Lord's amendment, but we are less than convinced that it is the right mechanism.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, if I could just respond by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I made a contribution, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, rightly addressed the amendment for government consideration.
	We recognise the strength of feeling behind the noble Lord's representation on this issue; he is supported in several other parts of the House. We share the view that it is imperative that the board is able fully to assess and address the needs of those who rely on statistics for local and regional level policy-making, which is the burden of his case. We recognise that the availability of such statistics is increasingly important and that statistics are required from neighbourhood level, through local and regional level, up to national level. As I indicated in Committee, we want a tight and cohesive board, with members appointed collectively to represent a wide range of interests. We want to retain as much flexibility as possible to establish the right mix of people to achieve that and to serve the public interest; we do not want to stipulate interest groups that must be consulted. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated that that raises some problems in producing an exhaustive and comprehensive list.
	I hear what the noble Baroness says, that it is a pity that subsection (4) is in the Bill. However, as I said in Committee, the reason the list exists at all is that the Cabinet Office must consult the devolved Administrations on appointments. Under the devolution settlement, the devolved Administrations have responsibility for devolved matters, including the production of statistics relating to those matters. By accepting this legislation, the devolved Administrations agreed that the board should have jurisdiction over devolved statistics produced by those Administrations. I am sure that the House will recognise the advantage of that for the development of the quality of statistics in this area. Giventhe constitutional responsibilities of the devolved Administrations for those statistics, it is right that the legislation should explicitly specify that each legislature should be consulted on the appointment of one member.
	We recognise the significance of the concern about statistics for local policy-making. I bear in mind particularly the points made today on migration statistics and the difficulty that they produce for local authorities. The ONS has been working with local authorities and government departments to identify how new and existing sources can be used to inform migration estimates. In 2005, detailed case studies were started in four local authorities to investigate the potential for alternative sources and methods. Two of the studies were in London—in Barnet and in Hammersmith and Fulham. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, emphasised the London dimension of those problems. Reports on the completed studies in London will be published on the ONS website in June this year.
	In response to the letter that was identified on the concerns of the London councils about the position, David Rhind, chair of the Statistics Commission, set out the action that he believed was necessary to improve migration statistics. He contested that it would be wrong to simply blame the Office for National Statistics. We need to change practices, and to obtain better estimates the ONS will need to receive raw information on people moving into and around the country, not only from local government and the department concerned but from other national departments in Whitehall: the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Department of Health. What is clearly needed is a sound system for people entering the country and their destinations. That has implications for data protection and it has technical implications. Any data on individuals would have to be kept totally confidential. The House will recognise that the Bill makes great strides in giving the powers and reassurance on that front, and we willbe discussing a dimension of that issue later this afternoon.
	I seek to respond to the very proper cases raised: the general one made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the more specific one of our present difficulties with regard to certain migration statistics which have profound implications for local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. I emphasise that we are obliged, and are taking steps, to improve the statistical basis for policy making in this crucial area; but the reason we have stipulated that there must be consultation in regard to only three board members is the specific requirements regarding the devolved Administrations in how this legislation works.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will, therefore, not conclude that the issue relating to the devolved Administrations has been put in a higher category than those relating to local government in England; the issues are different. There is a legal requirement to take account and to consult Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; otherwise, we would not have been as specific in the Bill and I would have met the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the extent to which the legislation is specific. I hope that the noble Lord will rest assured that there is no way that the Statistics Board, when established, can be anything other than completely cognisant of the significance of local and regional statistics to its work.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. I entirely agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made about migration. I have received similar representations. I would be glad to support the amendment relating to the functions of the board that he has tabled with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I ventured to make a similar point last time around. With the assurance given by the Minister and the prospect of what might lie ahead, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 2:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
	"Role of members
	(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 27 and 28, the National Statistician is to carry out the functions of the Board, and in respect of those functions he is to be the chief executive of the Board.
	(2) The non-executive members are to monitor the performance of—
	(a) all of the functions of the Board;(b) the National Statistician;(c) the Head of Assessment."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in Committee we had much discussion about what has become known as "the muddle". This refers to the problems of clarity regarding the role of the board, the members of the board, the National Statistician and the head of assessment. Those of us who spoke in Committee and external parties, such as the Royal Statistical Society and the Statistics Commission, have concerns on a number of points, including what the role of the chairman of the commission will be vis-à-vis the National Statistician and who will be the public face of the board. Are the various functions of the board, such as the production of statistics as set out in Clause 17, carried out in the name of the National Statistician or that of the board? Is it clear that the board holds the National Statistician to account for her performance in carrying out the board's functions, and so on?
	Those and other concerns led us to table a series of amendments in Committee. The Minister said that the Government would reflect further and return to the issues on Report. To that end, he has tabled Amendments Nos. 29 to 35 in this group. These amendments were tabled only last week, but to ensure that we had a proper discussion of the issues on Report, I had already tabled Amendment No. 2 and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, had tabled Amendment No. 28. I do not pretend that Amendment No. 2 deals with all the problems we identified in Committee, but it attempts to make clear that the National Statistician will carry out most of the board's functions in her own name as chief executive of the board. The amendment also seeks to ensure that the role of non-executive members includes assessment of the performance of the board's functions and the people carrying them out.
	The Government's amendments, to which I am sure the Minister will speak in detail, address only some of the problems that we identified in Committee. I welcome Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35, because they clarify the separation of the role of the head of assessment and his staff. Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 go some way to clarifying the role of the National Statistician.
	However, the respective roles of the National Statistician, the chairman, the non-executive members and the board as a collective body are still muddled. That is not helped by the recruitment process that the Government initiated for the chairman, with the job paying £150,000 a year for a three-day week. The job specification makes it clear that the person envisaged is a powerful and visible part of the Statistics Board, in relation not just to the board but also to the Government Statistical Service, which until now has been the preserve of the National Statistician.
	I do not believe that the Government's amendments are sufficient to remove ambiguity from the Bill. Nevertheless, I recognise that organisations can operate successfully even if they have defective constitutional arrangements.
	Good, committed people are rarely held back by the problems bequeathed to them by the draftsmen, who do not understand how organisations have to work; they just get on with the job. The organisation specialists in the Treasury had a rather bizarre go at the internal structures of the Bank of England in the Bank of England Act 1998 and at the Financial Services Authority in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In practice, both the Bank and the FSA have successfully evolved workarounds. They managed to do that because the various people involved in those bodies wanted their organisations to work well rather than to be restricted by the rules that appear to govern them.
	I hope that the Government will appoint good people to the new board, who will focus on successful outcomes and, in particular, on the restoration of trust in statistics. If they do, it will not much matter that some of the muddle remains in the Bill. In that spirit of hope, I expect to be able to support the government amendments in this group.
	I ask the Minister specifically to address the issue of performance review, which is dealt with in my Amendment No. 22 but not in his amendments. Does he accept that the role of the non-executive members of the board led by the chairman is to review the performance of the National Statistician, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill does not specifically say so? I hope that the Minister can answer that simple question. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the amendments in this group have become known as the muddle amendments. The noble Baroness described several aspects of the potential muddle. The government amendments deal with some of them but not, unfortunately, all of them. They deal pretty comprehensively with the potential muddle between the National Statistician and the head of assessment. In my view, that is arguably the least important element in this regard.
	The government amendments do not deal adequately with the potential muddle between the function of the board as opposed to that of the National Statistician. Government Amendment No. 32 states:
	"The National Statistician must establish an executive office ... to assist him in his exercise of",
	this, that and the other function. That sort of implies that that is his, rather than the board's, function. It is therefore a great pity that the Government did not also accept proposed subsection (1) of Amendment No. 2, which states that,
	"the National Statistician is to carry out the functions of the Board, and in respect of those functions he is to be the chief executive of the Board".
	You could have sensibly gone on from there with the Government's amendment but the government amendment starts off halfway through the narrative. I hope that, whatever we decide this afternoon, the Government will add that small subsection at Third Reading. It simply clarifies what they seem to want to achieve.
	At the noble Baroness mentioned, in the amendments there is no reference to, and no attempt to clarify, the role of the chairman vis-à-vis the board. I suspect that this will have to be down to the good sense and personalities of the people involved. There may be a marginal difference in the balance of who becomes the voice of the board if the chairman is a very strong public figure and the National Statistician is relatively self-effacing compared with a chairman who is very sound but not quite as forward as a high-profile National Statistician. Therefore, there may be a need to retain a degree of flexibility in how those two individuals behave and work together, although everything will depend on them working together well.
	Although some of the mist is clearing from the muddle, some remains. I hope that the Minister will look at that small additional amendment at Third Reading. As the noble Baroness said, we are grateful to the Government for at least having looked at and grappled with this matter. We accept that it is not an easy issue and, in that spirit, we, too, will support the government amendments this afternoon.

Lord Moser: My Lords, we have had many months of discussion on the Bill—public discussion and consultation and discussion in the other place and here—and much of it has obviously centred on the organisational structure envisaged under the new reforms. I have looked at the present version of the Bill and today's amendments and have thought back a little to the concerns that I and others have expressed at various stages.
	I start with the top layer of the new governance structure, which is Parliament. Of course, I understand that that we could not have expected the role of Parliament to be described in the Bill, but we cannot conclude our discussions without going back to that aspect because it is the top layer. In future, the new Statistics Board, which the Bill establishes and which we have all basically welcomed, will report to Parliament, and this is not a simple or perfunctory role. In my view, it is not just a question of laying a report once a year for our discussion or consideration or the occasional question. It is absolutely clear that detailed and tricky issues, such as behaviour in relation to the new code, may come back to Parliament. Therefore, I simply want to put on the record the view expressed at earlier stages, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that at some point we must consider this aspect of the new reforms, although I do not know whose task that will be.
	At present, two committees—one in each House—go close to the subject matter. There is the Treasury Committee in the other place and the Economic Affairs Committee here, but neither is fit for purpose for the new Bill. The Treasury Committee basically deals with Treasury issues, but we have made it clear time and again that we are dealing with issues relating to all departments. The same kind of point relates to the Economic Affairs Committee, so something new has to be established if Parliament's job under the reforms is to be carried out.
	The subject that has occupied us most is the relationship between the board and the National Statistician. At previous stages, we have asked for greater clarity, which means, first, clarity about the role of the board. I greatly appreciate the Government's amendments. I thank the Minister and others who have been involved. We have gone a long way towards responding to the worried views expressed on this matter here by the Royal Statistical Society and the Statistics Commission. These amendments go far enough to leave the rest in the hands of a very good board.
	We perhaps should remind ourselves of our concern that the board should be non-executive. That is covered in the Bill, but I still worry a little about the spirit behind the final stage, partly because of the recruitment process, which has been mentioned. It is not so much the salary as the three-day week which, to my way of thinking, does not sound very non-executive. It is very important that there is a clear distinction between the chairman's non-executive role and the National Statistician's executive role. Thanks to the Government's amendments, the precise functions of the chief executive of the statistics system—the National Statistician—are now clearer. For my money, I would still have liked a little more reference to her role vis-à-vis the whole of the Government Statistical Service or statisticians in other departments. However, that is not there, and I think that we can probably leave it to the new board to ensure that it is viewed as a single system.
	On the whole, almost sufficient clarity has been achieved on that worrying issue of the board vis-à-vis the National Statistician. However, a lack of clarity remains—I do not know whether it is too late to hope for more amendments at Third Reading—in that there are references in earlier parts of the Bill to the board producing statistics and all the details that that encompasses. I would have preferred those references in Clauses 6, 17 and so on, to go, but it is probably not worth fussing about at this point. I shall no longer use the term "muddle", as we now have a slightly demisted muddle and I am very grateful to the Government for what they have done.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the points that I would have made have already been made by other speakers, but I want to emphasise the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moser. At an earlier stage, I said that the function of the board is not so much to regulate the statistics, but to regulate the people who produce the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, has made the point that if there are references in the Bill to the board producing statistics, that is still capable of generating muddle. The National Statistician, the department, of which the National Statistician will be the head, the various departments and other organs of Government produce the statistics. The role of the board is to see that they do it properly, to coin a phrase, and to scrutinise.
	It would be enormously helpful if, in response to this debate, the Minister could accept that the board itself does not produce statistics and perhaps amendments could then be made at a later stage, or in another place, to reflect what seems to me to be an absolutely crucial point in this organisation. That lies at the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Moser, has described as the muddle. I am perhaps not quite as optimistic as he is that that muddle has been totally resolved. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give the kind of assurances for which I have asked.

Lord Turnbull: My Lords, at Second Reading and in Committee, I was more or less a lone voice in arguing for a unitary board, so I am pleased that we have now basically accepted that principle. I wanted all statistics to be produced with the full authority of the board, which goes beyond simply saying thatthe National Statistician produces them. The board should have to put its name to them, to ward off any serious challenge from Ministers. We are refining a model, and it is one that I have argued for all the way through the debates.
	The relative power of the chairman and the chief executive is something that statute should allow to develop over time. Think of the Audit Commission—there have been changes in the relative standing of the chair and the controller of audit at different times, to reflect the personalities and skills of each. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moser, about the three days a week. I suspect that it is necessary in the set-up phase, when the chair does a lot of the interviewing of the senior people coming into the organisation. However, once it is in steady state, three days a week is probably too much and will bias the balance and prevent the natural evolution of the relationship between those two figures.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a useful debate on one of the core aspects of the Bill. As the House will recognise, the Government never thought there was a muddle about the governance structure and the respective roles and responsibilities of the board and the National Statistician. However, in so far as through debate we have been pressed for greater clarification on the issues—we hope we have succeeded in providing it—the Bill has been advanced and strengthened.
	The amendments, tabled both by the Government and by other Members of the House, broadly reflect a goal we all share—that of making the Bill as clear as possible on governance and roles and responsibilities. We are legislating in some respects for a dynamic situation. This is the first creative phase with regard to the board, so the definition of the role of the chairman, the amount of time that he or she will devote to it and the remuneration reflect the arduousness of creating a very substantial institution. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, that that can change when we get into steady state—that the demands may not be so great on the chairman then. I also agree with a number of other noble Lords that, as with so many boards and the relationship between the chairman and the chief executive, the relationship between the chairman and the National Statistician may change in respect of their personalities and how they work together. We all know that there has to be recognition of evolving change in those terms, but this board is like no other. We seek to create an effective board with the two key figures working together to reach the objectives for which it was established, but we recognise that the relationship between them may change over time.
	Of course the Government are committed to the governance structure established in the Bill, in which the single legal entity charged with delivering the functions in the Bill is the Statistics Board. The Bill provides for a single institutional structure with a board that is legally responsible and accountable for all the body's functions in line with the principles of good corporate governance. The Bill establishes that the board will be a mix of executives and non-executives, although we are legislating to ensure that there is always a clear non-executive majority.
	We expect that the executive business of the board will be discharged by professionals, acting under the board's direction, but the legal authority to act on behalf of the Statistics Board flows through the board, and it must therefore retain the authority to act in relation to matters for which it is accountable. As the noble Lord, Lord Moser, indicated, one aspect of that is its accountability to Parliament. This issue was mooted during the debate on the previous amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Newby, referred to it with regard to statistics on migration, which are causing considerable public comment. If the board were in existence, the interest of Members of Parliament would force it to respond in the way that I have, in most perfunctory fashion, sought to identify. I have no doubt that Parliament would expect the board to respond in a committed and effective way to a problem that arises.
	The model we are using is a straightforward one for the governance of public authorities. We believe that it is the most effective way to deliver greater independence for the Office for National Statistics and independent scrutiny and oversight of the statistical system as a whole, while avoiding the creation of competing centres of statistical expertise within it. The unitary structure is the right approach. That is why I have resisted amendments that would fracture the single structure and leave unclear who is legally accountable for the functions specified in the Bill. A mixed executive/non-executive board would no longer have the capacity to ensure the discharge of the functions for which we wish it to be responsible. All it would have the power to do is to monitor the National Statistician as he or she exercised those functions, and the National Statistician would be able to ignore any views the board might have about how its executive functions should be discharged. The burden of some of the amendments we have considered is to confine the role of the non-executives merely to monitoring, which would be a tremendous waste of the talent and experience that we intend them to bring to the board and to the statistical system as a whole.
	This is a standard approach in statutes that establish new legal entities. For example, the board follows the pattern of the Food Standards Agency, which was set up under the Food Standards Act. The non-ministerial department established in that Act consists of the13 or so people who sit on its board. The board is charged with the responsibility for carrying out a range of functions, which those 13 people clearly do not have the capacity to do on their own. The Food Standards Act, like the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, provides a flexible framework. That framework enables the Food Standards Agency to discharge its functions, either through decisions at board level or through delegations to staff. That also applies in respect of taxation and the powers that are vested in the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	I do not think that the model of unitary governance in the Bill leads to confusion. The arguments that have been put forward and amendments that have been tabled have obliged us to be more specific about several of those functions and I recognise that the House has made a considerable contribution to the most important feature of the Bill: the structure and responsibilities of the board and its operations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the National Statistician as the chief executive of only the production function. That is the primary responsibility of the Statistics Board. The fact that he is not involved directly in the assessment of the Statistics Board's own functions does not prevent him being ultimately responsible as the chief executive for ensuring the effective and efficient discharge of the board's functions. It is not unusual for a chief executive of any corporate body not to be directly involved in the assessment function. Nevertheless, he or she takes final responsibility for all the board's actions. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that we are not departing from past models regarding how the board will work in these terms.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her understanding of the Government's attempts to respond to some of the points she has made in the past. She will recognise that the National Statistician as chief executive of the board has a relationship to the chairman. The chairman is also accountable for the work of the board. In that sense, there is an element of review between them of the National Statistician's work.
	The noble Baroness will recognise that the National Statistician is a civil servant. Therefore, at some stage he may also be responsible to the head of the Civil Service. This is a significant post in public life. We all recognise that. He or she is being greatly strengthened by this concept of the board, which produces a distance from the Government. However, with a board of this significance—the noble Lord, Lord Moser, indicated this in his contribution about accountability to Parliament—one cannot separate the board and its great significance from public accountability and, ultimately, full government responsibility for the effectiveness of its actions.
	I appreciate that the Government could have been a little quicker off the mark and therefore perhaps have reduced the workload on the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in producing her amendments, although she had already foreshadowed those by her work in Committee. I hope that she will recognise that our amendments go a considerable way to meeting arguments advanced on these most important issues. I trust that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment and that in due course the House will give its support to the government amendments when they are moved.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all those comments which will have put to rest some of the concerns that some people still have. I still think that the Government are muddled about what a unitary board is. When challenged on the idea of performance review, we were told that there is an element of review, but that there is also the head of the Civil Service. This board is not of the kind that has complete competence. I am not at all clear that all these issues are yet fully understood. Nevertheless, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we intend to support the Government's amendments on this and hope that the muddle in the Bill does not affect the real world. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Objective]:

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Clause 7, page 4, line 27, leave out second "and"

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. These amendments seek to extend the definition of the public good objective in Clause 7 by adding to the explanation of public good, which is found in subsection (2). It says that serving the public good,
	"includes in particular ... informing the public about social and economic matters, and ... assisting in the development and evaluation of public policy".
	We have no problem with that definition as far as it goes; it simply does not go far enough.
	Doubtless, the Minister will say that my amendment is unnecessary because the existing drafting is "precise, succinct and clear" and that "endless refinements" do not help—at least, that is what he said in Committee. I would like to explain why the drafting is not precise, succinct and clear enough. I believe it to be Whitehall-centric. One way or another, the amendment is designed to stretch the footprint of the definition of public good so that it is indeed clear that it covers some other vital elements of public good.
	The first bit of clarification is the addition of the words,
	"at national and local levels",
	to the public policy reference in Clause 7(2)(b). Of course, the existing drafting does not exclude the evaluation of policy at other than the national level, but the practice to date has been that the local dimension of statistics has been the second cousin, or even further removed than that, to national statistics. The fact that the Local Government Association and bodies representing the regions are concerned about the recognition of their needs in the Bill is proof enough that we should be doing something positive to ensure that the Statistics Board has those issues at the heart of its work. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made the other points relevant to that leg of my amendment.
	My amendment also deals with,
	"meeting the information needs of users of statistics".
	That also relates to the needs of local government and other non-national-level users of statistics, but goes beyond that. In Committee, I cited the information needs of those involved in issues of domestic and social cohesion, which are not fully met by current statistics. There will be plenty of other examples. User orientation is not covered by the current wording and its absence implies that users are not an important element in defining what is meant by serving the public good.
	A further leg of my amendment is the need to produce "benefits for citizens". The current wording talks about "informing the public". That certainly does not go far enough. I am sure that citizens benefit from being informed, but "benefits for citizens" operates on a much wider plane. For example, it involves having a statistical system that meets the highest standards. It would be possible for the wording of Clause 7(2) to be met with little perceptible advantage for citizens.
	That is closely linked with the final element, which is,
	"achieving high levels of public trust in statistics".
	It is curious that a Bill that we all believe is important because it offers a chance to restore public trust is so coy about even mentioning the subject of public trust. Citizens benefit when we have a system of statistics that is both excellent in itself and trusted. That in turn will increase the degree of trust attached to the policies which statistics underpin, which leads to better government.
	My case is not that it is impossible to stretch the interpretation of the current definition to meet the items that I have mentioned, but that by ignoring those items we are left with a definition of serving the public good that is exclusive and Whitehall-centric. We believe that a more inclusive definition that incorporates local needs, user needs, citizens and public trust would more fairly communicate what I hope that the Government agree are important components of the public good. We believe that those elements are so important that they should be in the Bill, not left to the vagaries of legal interpretation once the Bill has passed into law. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I shall speak briefly to two aspects of it. The first is an aspect that we discussed under Amendment No. 1—statistics at levels lower than the national. We have had a good airing of that issue. In replying to Amendment No. 1, the Minister accepted the importance of statistics at those levels. He argued that Amendment No. 1 was not the best way of recognising that in the Bill. Given the importance of the issue, however, I hope that he can accept Amendment No. 3, because it is the only other way in which the Bill can refer to the importance of local statistics.
	The second, and final, aspect of the amendment about which I feel particularly strongly is the question of how we achieve high levels of public trust in statistics. At Second Reading, almost every speech referred at some length to the problems that have arisen in the way in which statistics have been used and the consequent falling levels of public trust. If one believes the statistic, well under 20 per cent of the population believes any figure that the Government publish. Therefore, requiring the board to think about specific activity that might help to restore faith in statistics would be very valuable. It is all very well producing statistics properly, but a proactive programme by the board to explain what it is doing and why statistics are being produced under its watch to the highest possible standard would be very worth while. Without that in the Bill, this area will, by definition, fall to the bottom of the list. As I said, the board needs a proactive policy to explain to the people of this country why they can again have a high level of trust in statistics. If my memory serves me correctly, the Government were equally keen to point out at Second Reading that restoring trust in statistics was the central purpose of the Bill, so I am sure that they will find it in themselves to accept the amendment.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept my noble friend's amendment. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have explained with considerable force why there is real advantage in spelling out the public good in the way in which the amendment does. I shall give two examples. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others have referred to the problem for local governments of the paucity of statistics on immigration and population movements. It is only a week or so since the House debated the report of our own Economic Affairs Select Committee, to which Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, gave some very disturbing evidence on the first day of evidence. On 31 October last year, which is some while back, he was challenged on why he found it so difficult to provide accurate forecasts. He said:
	"On the quantity side, the single biggest uncertainty is the size of the labour force. We just do not know how big the population of the United Kingdom is and, because the composition of the population and its split between different groups of workers, young versus old, migrant workers versus normally resident workers, has changed in recent years, it may well be that some of the statistics we are using are not giving a very accurate reading".
	That puts it very modestly. I shall not read what he went on to say, but it is quite clear from that evidence and the Select Committee's view of it that this is a very serious failure of the present system. The Bank is perhaps one of the most important users of statistics, and it is quite inadequate merely to wrap all this up in the phrase "the public good". One could give other examples, but I would have thought it very valuable to add the words in my noble friend's amendment about the users of statistics. I shall not repeat what I said at an earlier stage when I quoted from the Statistics Commission's own report about the needs of users, because that is already on the record.
	Statistics are produced for the benefit of those who are going to use them. It is not an exercise conducted in vacuo and simply for someone to stand back and say, "This is for the public good". The users have to develop policies and activities on the basis of the figures that the statisticians produce, which I would hope could be recognised.
	Another example of "the public good" is the access of the public to the figures. Remarkably, there arrived on my desk this morning a report from the Statistics Commission entitled, Data on Demand—Access to Official Statistics. This very thorough report is based on a couple of considerably detailed research studies. Its main point was to find out what use the public make of statistics. How do the public access statistics? Is it easy for them? Do the public find it easy, for instance, to access statistics via the internet? The answer is that it is not nearly easy enough. In this report, the Statistics Commission proposed a series of principles. Principle 1 states:
	"Statistics are collected to be used and as wide a use of them as is possible should be encouraged, including the re-use of raw data for research outside government".
	Principle 2 states:
	"Since the most satisfactory forms of data provision are still evolving, UK government statisticians should adopt an explorative and experimental approach to dissemination and access to statistical data through the internet".
	I shall not weary the House with principles 3 to 8 at this stage. I do not think that that is included in the phrase, "the public good". This is a question of users, who are not only the official users but, with the participative democracy that we are increasingly moving towards, also members of the ordinary public who will wish to have access through the means with which they are becoming familiar; namely, the internet. That would be summed up in my noble friend's amendment for the benefit of users.
	I give just those two examples. I do not believe that the words in the Bill are sufficient to embrace all those considerations. My noble friend's amendment does that. I hope that the Minister, on reflection, will think it possible to accept the amendment, or that, at Third Reading, he might like to put in words that have a similar effect.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I support these two amendments. When I consider what is proposed and how the board might feel about it, I cannot think for a moment that the board would find it unduly onerous to be required to take into account the local level, as it is left to the board to define what is local, to what extent and how frequently. It is useful to include the provision. As I said previously, even if the effectiveness of expenditure can be increased by only 0.1 per cent, we are talking about a benefit of £100 million every year. That is very big money for very little. I cannot think of an easier way of raising the prospect of a gain of £100 million.
	As for the emphasis that the board will give, the Bill states that the board shall have a chairman and not fewer than five others; so the implication is that it will be a small board. Three of the others should be appointed having regard to a concern with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On such a small board, it would be surprising if, with the national requirement and the needs of those three countries, the needs of local communities in England did not get decent weight. This is a desirable safeguard in view of the structure of the board itself. In the light of what I said about money and the Minister's understanding of monetary matters, I hope that the Minister will be responsive.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, when I first saw this amendment, I wondered whether it was really necessary. The Minister may say, "Is not serving the public good sufficient?". However, while listening to the discussion, in particular to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I have become convinced that, given the history and background, it is important to have both belt and braces. That is what the amendment seeks. It would add braces to the belt, or whichever way round you prefer it. It would be helpful to have this amendment and I hope the Government will agree to it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the objective set out in Clause 7 is the cornerstone of the Bill it is right that the House should subject it to the most robust debate, and the amendment raises important issues. The noble Lords who contributed to the debate emphasised the value of local-level statistics, the importance of meeting the needs of users, providing benefits for citizens and, of course, the crucial issue of public trust. The Government believe that the objective set out in the Bill should be succinct, broad and high-level. It is designed to make a clear statement of the overall purpose of the board. It is to "promote and safeguard" the quality, good practice and comprehensiveness of the official statistics that serve the public good. Clause 7 sets out the objective clearly, concisely and in an entirely appropriate way by covering the right ground in sufficient detail.
	I turn to the question of trust which the noble Baroness emphasised in her contribution was crucial. The amendment specifies,
	"achieving high levels of public trust in statistics".
	One of the Government's key aims in establishing this independent board is to improve the level of public trust in official statistics. That is the genesis of the Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has repeatedly made that point, as did I when the legislation first came before your Lordships' House. As I argued in Committee, however, many factors outside the scope of the board's responsibilities determine the level of trust in statistics and it would be an unrealistic obligation to put on the board in specific terms. When considering this issue at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, said that trust is a "complex matter", and indeed it is. He observed that trust in statistics is part and parcel of trust in the Government themselves, and indeed in politicians in general. I am sure that we all recognise the truth of that remark.
	Levels of numeracy and people's understanding of figures and statistics are likely to impact on people's degree of scepticism or otherwise of official statistics. People's individual experiences of issues presented at an aggregate level by statistics also play a part in their propensity to trust statistics. We know, for example, that the public perception of levels of crime does not mirror what often appears in crime statistics. How statistics are used and how they are presented to people, especially by the media, plays an important role in whether they trust public figures.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as the noble Lord may remember, when I referred to the Bill at a much earlier stage—in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I think—I drew attention to the report by Professor Adrian Smith on crime statistics, which the noble Lord has just mentioned. I think he now owes it to the House to tell us what the Government are going to do in response to Professor Smith's report. It is perfectly clear that the definitions of crime and the use made of them are in fact misleading to the public. Far from being concerned with the public good, they do not actually serve the public good at all. Can the Minister respond?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are on Report. I am not prepared to go into a wide discourse now about a range of other issues related to this. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and other Members of the House brought the important issue of crime to my attention, but I was using it merely as an illustration of the problem. I am not going to open up a big discussion on crime rates and the degree of public trust in these issues. If I did, we would stray way beyond Report stage and our concentration on this amendment. I am talking only about one specific part of the amendment; namely, the level of public trust.
	The board has levers to achieve its objectives, but we cannot expect it to be responsible for meeting an obligation to enhance levels of public trust. There are simply too many other factors involved in the situation for the board to take that as a chief responsibility. The board's objective rightly focuses on helping to deliver high-quality and comprehensive statistics that serve the public good. That is what we should expect of the board, and it is something the board can take a direct role in, using the functions assigned to it in the Bill.
	While I am sure the board will wish to undertake work to determine levels of public trust—to seek to understand better what causes levels of public trust to change and to play its part in helping to improve levels as necessary—that is not something that it alone can control. I am therefore resisting the crucial part of the amendment being included in the core objectives, which of course Clause 7 involves.
	I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to whose arguments on this front I paid tribute to earlier today, and from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who has emphasised this point again, that local statistics are important. I can reassure the House that the wording of the objective was drafted using the term "public policy" to encompass the fact that official statistics should play a role in supporting the evaluation of policy at all levels, be that local, regional, national or even international.
	Amendment No. 4 goes on further to specify that serving the public good should include,
	"meeting the information needs of users".
	User needs are important, and the board's objective already states that it is to promote and safeguard the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of official statistics, including accessibility, relevance and coherence. In fulfilling that objective, clearly stated in Clause 7, the board will undoubtedly need to set up mechanisms to establish user interest and to set about addressing them.
	The amendment specifies producing benefits for citizens. As we have said repeatedly during the course of the Bill, one of the core reasons the Bill was amended in the other place was to make quite explicit the Government's belief that official statistics exist to serve the public in the widest sense, not just to help the work of Government.
	I hope it will be recognised that the amendment identifies areas that the Government have thought about clearly and carefully and believe are included within the broad aims of Clause 7. We wish to defend the clause as being a realistic, proper and accurate definition of what the board should seek to achieve. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate.
	I am of course disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, by what the Minister has said in response. He said that trust was a complex matter, and so should not be in the Bill. We think it is so important that it should be clear and visible for all to see, as one of the most important objectives that lie behind the Bill. My noble friend Lord Jenkin gave the very good example of the crime statistics and why we need the issue of public trust in the Bill. The Minister's response to that was interesting: he said that the board was just going to concern itself with high-quality statistics, and that was the beginning and end of its role in that regard. We disagree: we think there are other aspects to public trust which, for example, underline the approach to pre-release which is embedded in the Bill that we will send to another place. It is also implicit in many of the other issues that we have debated in Committee, such as whether the Statistics Board should be commenting on the misinterpretation of statistics. Public trust goes way beyond simply putting out good-quality statistics.
	I shall not press my amendment today but I hope that those who become members of the Statistics Board take the trouble to read the deliberations of your Lordships' House to see what we believe they should be doing to ensure that public trust is achieved and that the needs of a much wider group than has hitherto been met by the ONS and other statistics will be at the heart of the board's work. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Howard of Rising: moved Amendment No. 5:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
	"Co-ordination and consistency
	The Board is to promote—
	(a) the co-ordination of planning for and production of all official statistics, and(b) the production of official statistics that are consistent across all government departments and all parts of the United Kingdom (including the nations and regions.)"

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, this amendment has been retabled to encourage the Minister to give a little more thought to the issues it raises. The slew of government amendments we are considering today testify to his close consideration of the points my noble friend made in Committee. I hope I can convince him to extend this same helpful attitude to this amendment as well.
	In Committee, the Minister made the point that statistics produced at a local level are bound to diverge to a greater or lesser extent. He is quite right—statistics should be produced close to where they are collected and used. However, the amendment in no way discourages this. Localism should—and, I hope, will—encourage greater responsiveness to the needs of users. That will indeed cause a certain amount of divergence in how statistics are presented or what data are collected, but there will also be a considerable amount of divergence arising for no reason whatever. One example might be the time of year that identical statistics are published in different areas of the country. There would be no benefit to such diversity and it would be extremely inconvenient for any user wishing to compare data between these areas.
	The amendment would ensure that such unnecessary divergence is prevented. It would not give the board to power to enforce consistency or give it a higher priority than local needs. Such an approach would be inappropriate and undesirable. But it would allow the board to identify and address unhelpful inconsistencies and make sure that different producers are aware of how similar statistics are produced in different areas.
	The Minister accepted in Committee that the board was the right body to undertake this role. I hope that he will be persuadable this time around about the benefits this amendment would bring. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have sought to make these points at various stages of the Bill's proceedings. On Second Reading, I drew the Government's attention to the fact that the year 2000 framework had firmly placed an obligation on the chief statistician to engage in planning and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to maintain and develop the co-ordination structure for national statistics.
	In Committee, I again drew the Minister's attention to the fact that I had asked those questions. Why is there nothing in the Bill about either of those matters, both of which were part of the year 2000 framework? I have still not received an answer. If it is thought that they do not need to be put in the Bill because they will be done automatically, why were they specified in the 2000 framework? My noble friend's amendment gives us an opportunity to repeat the questions. If these matters were thought important to make specific seven years ago, why are they not important enough to be made specific in the Bill?

Lord Moser: My Lords, this is an important amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. This legislation has had to face a fundamental problem from the very beginning; namely, that we have a decentralised system. One needs only to think how easy it would be if we had a single statistics office as is the case in most countries. Some of the problems that we have spent time discussing would not then arise; quite a few of them would be much easier to solve. However, our sticking, rightly, with a decentralised system is the reason for many of the problems that we have discussed.
	I have on one or two occasions tried to describe the double role that the National Statistician, and therefore the board, has. One job of the National Statistician is to run ONS—what used to be called the CSO—and provide leadership as director of a single office at the centre. It is an extremely important role. In her other job, the National Statistician is rightly to be held to account as adviser to the statisticians in all the other government departments and, in a sense, as having ultimate responsibility for anything that happens anywhere in government statistics. That was certainly the case in my time as director of the CSO. If there were problems in health statistics with which the Department of Health would not or could not deal, I was ultimately held responsible, and rightly so; and so it has remained throughout the years.
	The amendment touches not only on the geographical consistency that is obviously needed—it has been remarked on by other noble Lords—across regions, but also on the fact that we are part of an international statistical system. Many of our statistics have to relate to the UK—that has to be dealt with. The amendment would mean also that the National Statistician and her forces had a responsibility for helping to plan the system asa whole, covering all government departments. It is a difficult role, because one has to recognise that, in a decentralised system, there is obviously great power in the hands of Secretaries of State, Ministers and civil servants in the departments. It is a much more diplomatic, indirect role, but it is nevertheless the National Statistician's responsibility.
	I had hoped from time to time that the National Statistician's responsibility for the GSS as a whole would be formally recognised in the Bill. I understand that this has not happened for two reasons. The first is reluctance on the part of the draftsmen to recognise the GSS as a legal entity. I do not quite understand why that is such a problem. The other reason is that, in many departments, statistics are in the hands of people who are not part of the professional group of statisticians, which I understand. However, it makes acceptance of the amendment even more important, so that, in one way or another, all statistics are seen as a single system, though decentralised administratively.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I add one point to those already made, which relates to the second part of the amendment and, in particular, the issue of consistency across nations and regions. This is particularly important as nations and regions with their own assemblies or Parliaments adopt policies which differ from those that operate in England, so that in terms of student finance the Scottish system is increasingly divergent from the English system. On both sides of that Border and the other borders, the proponents of these systems engage in discussions as to which is preferable, which can take place on a sensible basis only if we can understand the statistical basis on which they are being undertaken and if we can compare like with like. My slight fear is that as policies diverge, the statistical bases for working out how successful those policies are or their consequences might diverge. The amendment would put a requirement on the board to ensure that those problems of interpretation between nations and regions are minimised.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as we have heard, this amendment or ones like it have been discussed on many occasions and the Government's view remains that the Bill already strikes the right balance between providing the board with a clear objective, and wide-ranging duties and powers to deliver on that, while at the same time giving that independent board—and this is a very important point—the flexibility to establish mechanisms, and determine what particular activities it will undertake to ensure that it is fulfilling those responsibilities.
	Amendment No. 5 would require the board to promote the co-ordination of planning for and production of official statistics and the production of official statistics that are consistent across all government departments and all parts of the United Kingdom. On the question of promoting consistency across the UK, the Government recognise that consistent UK-wide statistics are beneficial and desirable. Such consistency means that statistics about the devolved countries can be combined, allowing figures to be produced for the UK and allowing the situation in the different Administrations to be compared. I should therefore note how pleased the Government are that the devolved Administrations have all decided to join the new arrangements. However, some divergence in statistical outputs across the different parts of the UK is to be expected, given the different political, legal and administrative systems and policies across the four nations, many of which existed prior to devolution, which can limit the development of consistent statistics. For example, statistics on education are sometimes not consistent, reflecting the fact that Scottish educational qualifications differ from those in England.
	In addition, the countries have different characteristics, which can lead to the need for different classifications and definitions. For example, Scotland is less densely populated in parts than England, leading to a demand for a different statistical definition of what it means for an area to be called rural. This means that it may not always be appropriate or desirable that statistics be consistent. If any inconsistency has a material effect on the quality and relevance of the statistics being produced, the board already has mechanisms available to it to help address that. It can take such issues into account in the assessment of national statistics and as part of its wider duty to monitor the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of official statistics, as set out in Clause 8.
	Clause 9 requires the board to develop, maintain and promote definitions, methodologies, classifications and standards for official statistics. We would expect that, when appropriate, and taking due account of the specific issues and needs of the different constituent parts of the UK, the board will promote consistent use of such definitions and classifications.
	On co-ordination, I remind noble Lords that the board already has a statutory objective to promote and safeguard the quality of official statistics, which includes coherence and relevance, comprehensiveness and good practice. To deliver on that objective, the board will need to ensure effective co-ordination across the statistical system, including through establishing mechanisms to ascertain user needs, as well as ways in which to assess the adequacy of statistical work programmes across Government to meet those needs. If the board judges that work programmes are not comprehensive or lack co-ordination, there are a number of ways in which it can seek to address that, including reporting its concerns to Ministers and making its views public, under Clause 8; reporting concerns to Parliament and to the devolved legislatures in its annual report or in a special report, under Clause 24; and, if the board considers that there is a gap in statistical coverage that must be addressed and no other body will deliver statistics to meet the need, the board can produce the statistics itself, as set out in Clause 17.
	Rather than give the board additional obligations on how it must deliver on its statutory objective, we think it best to leave it to the independent board to determine how best to achieve it, including what mechanisms it will establish to do so. We must remember that this is a statute and that a number of documents will be produced, such as the framework of detailed mechanisms of roles and responsibilities. I hope that that assurance, coupled with what I have said, will enable noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, even though I am afraid that I do not agree with what he said about the balance being right. Amendment No. 5 would have allowed flexibility while promoting consistency. I do notwish to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 10 [Code of Practice for National Statistics]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Clause 10, page 5, line 20, leave out "National"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I will speak also to the other amendments in the group, some of which are government amendments and some of which are opposition amendments.
	The government amendments in this group are aimed at addressing a number of the concerns eloquently expressed in this House in relation to the coverage of the statistical system that is established by this Bill. They aim to clarify and further underscore the Government's intentions in a number of areas around the code of practice and official and national statistics, and they will add even greater transparency to the new statistical system that we are creating. They reflect, as we have been clear from the outset, that the Government intend to retain the established distinction between official and national statistics. At the heart of that is the desire for the new independent board to be responsible for promoting and safeguarding the quality and comprehensiveness of a very broad range of statistics. It reflects a desire that the definitions used in the Bill will well serve the statistical system and all who use its outputs both now and in the future. As such, the Government have been concerned to ensure that the Bill includes as broad and flexible a definition of "official statistics" as possible.
	There has never been a legal definition of "official statistics" in the United Kingdom, nor is there an agreed international definition, and at the start of this process it was not immediately clear the best way in which to define it. While we considered linking the definition to the professional group that producedthe statistics, the Government Statistical Service, the Government wanted to avoid a definition that would unnecessarily limit the role envisaged for the board, given developments in statistical production and activity in Government. Members of the Government Statistical Service are no longer the sole producers of statistical information within government and, indeed, many of the key statistics that the public use to judge the Government's performance come from administrative sources, the production of which may not be within the direct control of the statistical head of profession in a department.
	We have, therefore, concluded that the definition of official statistics should include all those statistics produced by the 200-plus government departments, agencies, devolved administrations and any other person acting on behalf of the Crown. Such a definition meets our goal of a definition that is both very wide and, we hope, future-proofed.
	However, having opted for that wide definition of official statistics, it was necessary to focus and prioritise the application of the formal assessment against the code established in Clauses 11 and 12. The aim was to help ensure that greater resource is devoted to statistics that have relatively greater importance, not just for policy makers, but for business, academia and the wide range of other users. The current set of around 1,300 national statistics provides the key statistics that the Government, business and the public rely on to provide an accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK.
	I am sure that the House recognises the challenges that the new board would encounter if it were legally bound to undertake a formal assessment of the vast and expanding number of official statistics, given the likely resource implications for the board and those being assessed. I expect that the added credibility that will come from securing independent endorsement of the quality and integrity of a set of statistics—and indeed, the public and parliamentary scrutiny that will inevitably follow a Minister's refusal to comply with a board's request to put a statistic forwardfor assessment—will incentivise the evolution and expansion of the national statistics system.
	The Government's broad case is that there is already a substantial number of national statistics and that it is bound to expand under pressuresfrom wider society. We have already seen illustrations and evidence of that this afternoon. Because the board has an assessment role, we need to draw a line on the level of obligation that we can place on the board.
	Government Amendments Nos. 6, 10, 17, 27 and 36 will change the name of the code of practice for national statistics to the code of practice for statistics. This change is aimed at making the intention more explicit; clarifying that the code is not something that applies only to national statistics. I note that those amendments are similar in objective to Amendments Nos. 7 and 11 of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
	Another issue that has caused concern in this House has been compulsory compliance with the code of practice. On this, I believe it is already clear that to gain the national statistics designation, statistics will need to be independently assessed by the board against the standards in the code and be adjudged to have complied with them. However, I note that this issue has caused not inconsiderable worry in this House. To reassure the House, Amendment No. 15 has been drafted to require any person producing any national statistic to ensure that the code of practice is complied with. I should emphasise that this duty applies not only to statisticians, but to every individual within a department who plays a role in the process—from those involved in preparing briefing for Ministers to the press officers, and everyone in between. If the board is not convinced of this compliance across the production process, national statistics status will not be granted. I remain unconvinced, however, of the need for such a clause to go beyond a general duty to comply by also covering issues of interpretation and reporting breaches; that is what Amendment No. 8, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seeks to achieve.
	The Government have decided that the way in which we will enforce compliance with the code is through an assessment of statistics against the standards set out in it. I think that noble Lords are agreed that conducting such an assessment is an appropriate way to ensure compliance. As to the sanction, we are of the view that what is appropriate is that if statistics do not meet the standards in the code, the statistics in question will not be granted, or will not retain, national statistics status. This will be a very public and transparent process, and that surely must be right. It also reflects the fact that there are not many attractive alternatives to de-designation as a sanction. If the process were applied to all official statistics, what would be the sanction for non-compliance?
	Alternative sanctions to de-designation would be some form of legal action—to compel compliance with the code. Would it not be somewhat heavy handed if a producer of official statistics could be subject to judicial review proceedings if it produces a set of statistics—on, say, the number of television licences that it holds—that is not fully compliant with the code?
	It is for that reason that the Government have made it clear in Amendment No. 15 that the sanction flowing from failure to comply with the code in relation to national statistics is a prohibition on the board confirming or designating national statistics status. That is a sanction. To my mind, this poses enough of a threat strongly to encourage compliance. I am not convinced of the need to allow for statistical producers to be threatened with some form of legal action to compel compliance with the code.
	The change in Amendment No. 22 is aimed at addressing some of the concerns raised in this House and in the other place in relation to strengthening the role of the board vis-à-vis Ministers in putting forward statistics for assessment. I note that the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby—Amendments Nos. 9 and 12—are aimed at a similar end, although they remove the role of Ministers entirely in the process, instead of allowing the board alone to initiate the assessment process. As I have explained in previous sittings, the Government are firmly of the view that in a decentralised system, the responsibility for submitting statistics for assessment must ultimately lie with departments.
	Ministers are responsible and accountable for allocating the resources in their departments, including those devoted to statistical production. Decisions on how to manage the resources of departments are properly taken by Ministers. Ministers are answerable to Parliament for their decisions. Giving the board the power to compel Ministers to take decisions about their departmental resources would undermine ministerial responsibility and accountability.
	That said, it has always been the Government's expectation—as the Financial Secretary has said many times in the other place and as I have said in several sittings here—that the board, as part of its statutory responsibility to promote and safeguard the quality and comprehensiveness of official statistics, would comment publicly on the coverage of national statistics; that is, that the board would comment where there are official statistics that it considers should be independently assessed with a view to gaining national statistics status.
	Further consideration of this matter, however—in part informed by the persuasive arguments put forward in this House during our consideration of the Bill—have convinced us that there is benefit in making this a duty of the board, and placing it on the face of the Bill. As such, this amendment will require the board to call for a Minister or other appropriate authority to put forward a particular statistic for assessment, where it feels that the statistic in question would benefit from the full scrutiny of the formal assessment process established by Section 11.
	Under this new clause, where such a request is made of a Minister of the Crown, it must be laid before Parliament. On receipt of such a request, a Minister must publish a statement as to whether, and when, he or she will comply. Where the Minister does not wish to comply with the board's request, the statement must include reasons for that decision.
	The amendment provides yet another opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the system, as both the formal request from the board to Ministers of the Crown and the response from Ministers to the board in relation to the nomination of a statistical series for assessment will be required to be placed before Parliament. Parliament will then be able to make its own judgment about the statistic in question, the validity of the board's request and the Government's response to that request.
	Clearly, in a situation where a Minister decides not to put forward a statistic for assessment following a request from the board, the Government fully expect Parliament to play a very active role in scrutinising the reasons put forward by the Minister in question, holding him to account for his decision.
	I believe that this new clause would be a worthy addition to our Bill in that it would serve to add further transparency and clarity to the statistical system that we are seeking to establish. Therefore, I hope that Amendment No. 22 will be accepted and that noble Lords opposite will not press their Amendments Nos. 9 and 12.
	I cannot support Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 and 18 to 21 in so far as they attempt to do away with the distinction between national and official statistics. I do not propose to address these amendments individually. As I have said several times already, the Government are committed to the maintenance of the national statistics system. I have advanced arguments as to why that is necessary and have also argued why the board should be given some responsibility for official statistics. I hope it will be seen that the Government have listened to strong arguments presented from all parts of the House on this very important part of the Bill and that we have tabled amendments which improve the Bill and which I hope can be supported. I beg to move.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments and for listening to the proceedings in your Lordships' House at Second Reading and in Committee.
	This group contains a number of amendments tabled in my name and in those of other noble Lords. The Minister will be aware that we tabled them prior to the Government tabling theirs, and I should say at the outset that I do not intend to move the amendments that stand in my name or to oppose the government amendments. However, we hope that there may be a little reflection by the Government between now and Third Reading on one or two aspects. Perhaps I may deal with those.
	The first is that Amendment No. 11 would describe the code as applying just to "statistics". We did not like the fact that it would apply just to national statistics, and that is why, in our amendment, we propose that it should apply to official statistics, which are now defined in the Bill. Will the Minister explain the subtlety of saying that it is a code for statistics? Is it intended to apply to statistics prepared by voluntary or commercial organisations and, if so, how does that fit in with the Bill? Essentially, the Bill deals with statistics produced by government, which is why we used the Government's own definition of "official statistics" in renaming the code. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point when he replies.
	The second point concerns compliance with the code. The Minister will be aware—he referred to it—that that was one of the very important issues that we debated at some length in Committee. The Royal Statistical Society and the Statistics Commission were united with us against the Government's position on this matter. The Government have already created a duty of compliance for national statistics, so that leaves open the possibility of government departments keeping their statistics out of the national statistics net if they want to cheat on the rules. I know that there are some mechanisms for doing so and I shall come to those in a minute. We think that that is undesirable. The duty to comply should be more widely drawn and should not relate only to statistics that happen already to have been brought within the national statistics assessment process.
	I have tabled Amendment No. 16, which deletes the words "but no action shall lie in relation to any such failure", as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, to probe what the Government intend by those words. The Minister said that the intention was that no legal action should lie in relation to non-compliance. I wanted to ensure that the Minister was entirely content and desired the Statistics Board to take action in the sense of shouting loudly and often about non-compliance. We accept that legal action would be inappropriate, but the other subtle ways of bringing pressure to bear on non-compliers is particularly important.
	That brings us to the new procedure and duty in Amendment No. 22. As the Minister knows, we would have preferred assessment to be in the hands of the board. We regard the Minister's AmendmentNo. 22 procedure as a naming and shaming provision because it will ensure that the board looks at those cases of statistics that have not come forward for national statistics assessment and name them if they are inappropriate to that category. We are certainly happy to support that and I hope that the result will be that the majority of statistics, certainly all those that have any significance, will be national statistics within a relatively short period of time. With those remarks, I reiterate that we are happy to support the Government's amendments.

Lord Newby: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, we are grateful to the Government for having listened to the debate in Committee and for making these changes. They deal more comprehensively with the problems that we have identified than the amendments on the muddle, which we discussed before. Therefore, we are grateful for them.
	However, I still think we have in place an extremely cumbersome system for dealing with what might be perceived as a problem by the board on one single set of statistics. The board has to apply to the Minister, saying, in effect, "Please can we designate these as national statistics so that we can look at them?". For example, last week for the second time, MORI had a Market Research Society decision against it in terms of the way in which statistics, which it had produced for DCMS on live music venues, had been usedby DCMS. The argument was that DCMS had misrepresented what MORI had done. The Market Research Society found against MORI, at which point DCMS refused to accept the finding or to do anything about it.
	When the Bill, if amended as proposed, comes into force—perhaps the Minister can confirm whether I am right about this—and the Statistics Board hears about such a situation, it may think that is not very satisfactory and that the statistics are not national statistics—I would be amazed if they were. Under Clause 22, the board would go to the appropriate Minister at the DCMS and say, "Please, we would like to make a request that these be recategorised as national statistics so that we can assess them to see whether we agree with the Market Research Society". The Minister may or may not agree; the Bill sets out what happens in those circumstances. That is pretty inflexible. Without going through the formal procedure, which requires statements to Parliament and heaven knows what, the board should be able to have a quick look at how DCMS dealt with the statistics. If necessary, there would be a rap over the knuckles and it would be dealt with quickly, expeditiously and, I hope, flexibly.
	My slight concern is that the Statistics Board will decide in a number of cases that it is not worth its while going through the cumbersome procedure in the Bill, because the statistics questioned are not hugely significant. I therefore have some questions about whether that is an overcumbersome way of dealing with the problem, but I shall come on a later amendment to another way in which the board might be able to deal with such "rap on the knuckle" instances.
	My second question about Amendment No. 22 related to what seemed to be asymmetry of approach between UK statistics and those produced by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the proposed new clause:
	"Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, the Board must lay ... its notification ... before Parliament",
	and when he responds the Minister has to lay a copy of his statement before Parliament. If the Minister is not a Minister of the Crown in the UK but a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Minister in the devolved Administrations, there is no provision in the Bill about what the board does. It does not have to lay anything before the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Equally, the relevant Ministers in those three jurisdictions do not have to make a statement in response to their legislative bodies. Therefore, there seems to be a lot less scrutiny and accountability in respect of statistics produced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than in UK-wide statistics. Given that the amendments have been produced relatively recently, I suspect that this is just a gap in the drafting, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that disparity of treatment will be rectified at Third Reading.
	As the noble Baroness said, we welcome the spirit of the Government's amendments in this group and will support them.

Lord Turnbull: My Lords, in the original Bill, there were two defects. The first was that the concept of national statistics and the code of practice were made coterminous, so if a series was not in national statistics—because it either had never been there or had been de-designated—it was outside the code, including provisions such as confidentiality. That made no sense, and I welcome the separation of the two concepts. I rather support those who prefer "code of official statistics"; it makes more sense and is more accurate. In the stages that remain, I hope that that can somehow be introduced.
	The second defect was that there was a voluntary system in which the right of initiative as to whether something had the state of national statistics lay entirely with Ministers. If something was outside that state and other people thought that it should be inside, there was very little that could be done about it. Now there is a mechanism that enables the board to express its dissatisfaction, so that something that should be in the higher tier of quality could be brought into it. I agree that it is a rather cumbersome mechanism, but it would not work exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggests. If the board is dissatisfied with something, it will investigate it, and its case as to why something should be placed into the higher tier will be made on the basis of some research.
	I welcome the reconstruction of the amendments. I am not sure that I would have done it exactly in this way, as I would have placed a duty on the board to assess the quality of statistics, and to have a rolling programme to do so on which it would decide. I do not think that it is necessary to have the sharp distinction, or that the de-designation mechanism will ever work. If something is important enough to be in national statistics, such as crime statistics, no one will ever say, "We will put this into a lower category". The pressure will be to improve it and retain its status. Nevertheless, where we are left is a great deal better than where we started.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I add my thanks for the amendments tabled by the Government, which go a long way to meet the concerns expressed in this House and in another place during earlier stages of the Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Noakes, I am puzzled by Amendment No. 6, which takes out the word "national" and leaves "statistics" because the Bill cannot cover statistics that are produced outside the machinery of government. The amendment tabled by the Opposition, Amendment No. 7, replaces "national" with "official", which makes it clear that we are talking about official statistics. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that.
	The Minister made it clear that he expects that most statistics will become national statistics in due course by qualifying through the process of assessment to be accepted by the board. He suggested that the failure of a set of statistics to qualify as official national statistics would operate as a condign punishment of some sort. I think that it will be the other way round and that a lot of departments will fight against their statistics becoming national statistics. They will want to retain their statistics as official statistics, which do not receive the same degree of scrutiny. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the proposals appear quite complicated. It may well be that the board will have the power to make sure that the process can continue. However, the idea that departments will feel under pressure to have their statistics upgraded to national statistics does not seem to represent the reality of what the Minister described at an earlier stage as a process of negotiation between the Treasury and other departmental Ministers. In the Government's determination to preserve two grades of statistics—national and other official statistics—I detect that that argument continues and that the Treasury would like to see all official statistics as national statistics, but other departments have refused to agree. If that is the position, I am not convinced that this process will mean that all statistics will become national statistics within a short while, as the Minister suggested.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is right on that last point. In my experience in the Home Office many years ago, we were certainly keen to keep as many statistics and bits of information down at our level as we possibly could.
	The Minister said that something was "future proofed". Can he help me by telling me what that means in English?

Lord Moser: My Lords, I rise only because I fussed about this point at every stage of Bill. My reactions are the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and I am grateful to the Government for taking this step, although it is a bit complex.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I think we are reaching a broad measure of agreement about the way in which we should go forward.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, whenever the words "future proof" occur, I give an involuntary shudder. However, I shall defend our position on this because we did not want to give an illustration or a definition of the borderline between national statistics and official statistics that acted as a complete barrier to movement. We are all too well aware that that definition is in the process of change—as I speak I have no doubt. Certainly, on future developments we have to assume that whole ranges of statistics that emerge obtain a salience which requires them to meet the full rigour of the code of practice and sanction and be included within national statistics. That was the only point on future proof. We would hope that the structure had sufficient malleability about it so that statistics could move from one category to another.
	The other point that has emerged in this short debate is the crucial stance of the Government that there has to be a barrier between national and official statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says that this strategy may not work. He is right that this is a process of discussion and debate between government departments, the National Statistician and the Office for National Statistics. That goes without saying. And it will be with the board. The reason we want the board is to reinforce the National Statistician's position regarding the control of these statistics and to challenge departments and other bodies which produce official statistics about their quality. Of course there will be give and take on this matter and none of that can be laid down in statute. The point I seek to make, which was reflected on by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, in his contribution, is that of course there will be other measures from the board denying the status of a national statistic to any statistic which is produced outwith the code. Of course there will be other sanctions and warnings. Ministers will be under very considerable pressure if the suggestion is that the basis on which they are formulating policy is faulty statistics which do not comply with the code.
	It is quite clear that most of the time the board will be drawing anxieties to Ministers' attention to improve performance to guarantee that the code is complied with. That is how government works and how we would expect it to work in a mature society. However, in law we have to have some form of sanction. We cannot say that the process will be of people necessarily agreeing to a common standard. That is why we have the sanction and why the sanction, so being applied, involves such work for the board that we could not possibly say that it can apply this sanction across the whole range of official statistics. We are saying that it can apply the sanction for national statistics and it can begin the process of demanding that certain statistics are of such import that they need to be brought within this framework. Pressure is put on departments accordingly.
	I do not underestimate the difficulty of the board's work. That is why, if noble Lords do not mind my saying so, we all respect the role of the National Statistician, who will be chief executive of the board. Even working three days a week, the chairman of the board will be a pretty substantial figure and will command a fairly reasonable rate of remuneration. We recognise that we are creating a body with very formidable duties, not ones which are easy application of rules but ones which involve substantial interaction with powerful producers. I never underestimate the significance of government departments in looking after their own interests in these terms; neither does anyone in this House, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who has repeatedly pointed that out to me during the course of proceedings on the Bill.
	I emphasise again that, first, we seek to produce some fluidity whereby those statistics that are included in national statistics can change over time. Secondly, in order to be within that framework, there is a significant sanction. To have that sanction, we need a differentiation between national statistics, which can be subject to such sanction and official statistics, which are too numerous for the board to be able to enforce compliance. Nevertheless, the board is establishing a code of practice that it will expect to be the lode star to which all official statistics aspire. It will set standards that will be mandatory on all categories of national statistics but will also be the guide for all official statistics that are intended to have national approval.
	The process of sanction will not often, if at all, be as crude as the sanction in the Bill. Ministers will be all too conscious of the fact that serious bad publicity will attend them if they are guilty of basing their policies on statistics which, in the board's opinion, fall short of the code. That sanction will apply long before the actual sanction in the Bill, which is also necessary. If the department does not measure up, such statistics would lose their status. The implications for Parliament and the wider public would be bound to be very significant.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, several of us have raised the question of why the code is now the code for statistics, not the code for official statistics. A definition of official statistics is clearly laid out in the Bill. National statistics are in effect a subset of that, but the Government have chosen to say that this is a code for statistics, which implies that it goes beyond official statistics to we know not where.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the intention is that the code should apply as widely as possible within the framework of the board's competence. I have said that our crucial distinction is between national and official statistics, but the board will identify clear criteria for a code that ought to obtain with certain other statistics which may not be official but nevertheless may be of significance to the public realm. The board will be looked to to set the standard by which everything else is judged.

Lord Newby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am slightly mystified. I did not think that the board had any role beyond what is defined in the Bill as official statistics. What kind of body other than those covered by the definition of official statistics would the board have any jurisdiction over or seek to take a particular interest in?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue of national statistics—official statistics which are largely the statistics of governmental bodies. We can see no reason why certain non-governmental organisations that produce statistics for the public realm should not seek to hit the standards that the code will embody. Of course, the board will not have control over them, but it will be issuing a code which others will observe if they want credibility in public life.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
	Clause 11 [Assessment]:
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 10:
	Clause 11, page 6, line 10, leave out "National"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 15:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
	"Duty to continue to comply with Code
	(1) The person producing any official statistics which are designated under section 11 as National Statistics must ensure that the Code of Practice for Statistics under section 10 continues to be complied with in relation to the statistics.
	(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) in relation to any statistics means that the designation of the statistics as National Statistics may not be confirmed under section 12 (but no action shall lie in relation to any such failure)."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 16, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Re-assessment]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 17:
	Clause 12, page 6, line 41, leave out "National"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 22:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
	"Requests for assessment: supplementary
	(1) Where in the case of any official statistics other than statistics produced by the Board—
	(a) the appropriate authority has not under section 11(1) requested the Board to assess and determine whether the Code of Practice for Statistics has been complied with, and(b) the Board is of the view that it would be appropriate for it to do so,the Board must notify the appropriate authority accordingly.
	(2) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, the Board must lay a copy of its notification under subsection (1) before Parliament.
	(3) A Minister of the Crown, on receiving notification under subsection (1), must provide the Board with—
	(a) a statement that he intends to make a request under section 11(1) in relation to the statistics; or(b) a statement that he does not intend to make such a request, and must lay a copy of the statement before Parliament.
	(4) A statement under subsection (3)(a) must include a timetable for making the request.
	(5) A statement under subsection (3)(b) must give reasons for not making the request.
	(6) Where the National Statistician determines not to make a request under section 11(1) in relation to any official statistics produced by the Board, he must—
	(a) make a statement that he does not intend to make such a request, giving reasons, and(b) lay a copy of the statement before Parliament.
	(7) In this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 11(1)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Reports]:

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Clause 24, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) The report under subsection (1) must contain either—
	(a) a statement that the Board considers that the resources available to the Board and any others who produce or publish statistics have been adequate during that year, or(b) an analysis of the extent to which the Board considers that resources have not been adequate together with the actions that it intends to take."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, which we support. I thank the noble Lord for agreeing to group his amendment with mine so that we can debate the two issues together, as I believe that that is convenient for your Lordships' House.
	My amendment would merely add to the annual report requirement in Clause 24 a statement that the resources available to the board and others who produce statistics have been adequate. If they have not been adequate, the board would have to give an analysis of the situation. Most of us have been concerned about the short-term and long-term impact of resources on the quality of statistics. I have not been convinced by the talk of five-year resource settlements, because they do not address the adequacy of resources. If resources are inadequate in year one, being told that they are available at that level for four more years is absolutely no comfort.
	My amendment would cover the resources not only of the board but of departments. It is obvious that quality statistics that comply with the code of practice cannot be produced on the cheap. Given the cost-cutting that is being forced on departments under the Comprehensive Spending Review, it would not be surprising if corners were cut. My amendment would allow the board to keep an oversight on this and, importantly, to report publicly if problems emerged.
	Adequate resources are essential if the board is to have genuine independence and freedom of action. Public reporting is a necessary counterweight against the pressures that will be put on the board and others who produce statistics to cut costs, thereby impairing quality. This is the link between my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lea. His amendment is about a very specific issue of independence and freedom. The board must be able to locate its activities where it considers best. Normally, such an amendment would be regarded as very odd, but those who have been following the Bill or the affairs of the Office for National Statistics will know that there is a very real problem with the current relocation to Newport. The Government have not even acknowledged the disastrous effect that the move is having on the retention of key staff; yet we know that some of the key statistical series are at risk because, inter alia, the Bank of England has warned us of that.
	It may well be too late to turn the clock back on Newport, but the question is whether the board is allowed to establish a larger London presence than has been planned, or whether the Treasury can use the weapon of a Lyons type of review again to force some other form of relocation. The amendments are about the freedoms of the board and its independent decision making. We heard throughout Committee that the board was to be given responsibilities for statistics and would not be micromanaged by the Treasury or anyone else. We never quite believed that, but the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, gives the Government a wonderful opportunity to state that one aspect of operational freedom in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will grasp it. I beg to move.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, as this is my sole contribution to our debates on Report, I trust that the House will indulge me if I paint a fairly wide canvas. I hope that the self-evident merits of AmendmentNo. 24 will, on reflection, have become apparent to the Minister and his colleagues in the Government. I shall return to the substance of the matter in a moment and I trust that it will receive a favourable response.
	The other reason I would far rather avoid the need to divide the House is that if this amendment were carried because the Government could not meet my modest points and they lost the vote, they would be tempted to characterise, if not caricature, what people like me were arguing; namely, that this is all about people not wanting to be sent to Newport, rather like people in Moscow after the revolution in 1826 not wanting to be sent to Siberia. I have some numbers: Kursk was not two hours from Moscow: until recently, it was two weeks and before that it was two months.
	Wearing my TUC liaison hat for a moment, I assure the House that our three affiliates—the FDA, the First Division Association of senior civil servants; Prospect, the professional civil servants union; and PCS, the largest Civil Service union—are not centring on that point and the amendment, of which of course they have knowledge, makes that absolutely clear. Perhaps I may summarise Amendment No. 24, which states:
	"The Board may locate its statistical activities in any place within the United Kingdom which it thinks necessary or expedient for the exercise of its functions".
	The reasons it might have in mind are to do with recruitment and retention,
	"effective contacts with users of statistics, in particular within central government",
	and,
	"maintain the influence of official statistics on policy".
	Perhaps my noble friend will comment on whether there is anything with which he disagrees on those points.
	The amendment can be characterised more fairly as simply codifying common sense. The ONS Relocation Business Case, a year ago, analysed what are objectively quite obvious pros and cons in all the scenarios ranging from, more or less, a 100 per cent move to something far less than that. It includes consideration of the geographical dimension and separation, along with the opposite argument that computers now make geography totally irrelevant. Just to remind ourselves of the scenarios that the ONS Relocation Business Case looked at, Option A states:
	"Maintain London workforce at 2008 reduced level to around 300 staff".
	Option B states:
	"Reduce workforce based in London to around 100 key staff".
	Option C states:
	"Maintain minimal presence in London with a 'consular' type of office presence".
	A further option states:
	"Accelerate the plan: complete all relocation activity by 2008",
	and,
	"Meet the target plan: complete all relocation activity by 2010".
	As I understand it, there are 1,200 staff in Newport and 600 left in London. Perhaps my noble friend will correct me if those numbers are wrong.
	Since our very interesting debate early in May, there has been an important interchange in the Financial Times where people have given different points of view. Karen Dunnell, director of ONS, has given evidence to the Treasury Select Committee and has written an article in the Financial Times in answer to some earlier briefing. Incidentally, that briefing included on-the-record expressions of concern from the Bank of England, to which I shall come back.
	Among other things, Karen Dunnell said:
	"We have timetabled the moves to allow the most time to relocate areas that contain more specialist expertise. So, for example, national accounts staff are likely to form the majority of London-based staff in 2010".
	I could say rather pedantically that that is the same as saying, "There are only 10 left in London, and six of them deal with the national accounts". One has to be clear about the time-scale here, although I am sure that Karen Dunnell would not have written those words without a bit of steering from the Treasury, given that at present the ONS is obviously under its thumb. You would not think that there was a Statistics Commission expressing any views about these matters at all. Given the cul-de-sac the Government found themselves going down in May, some of us have had contact not only with the trade unions, but also with my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, whom I applaud for the courtesy he has shown. I have also been holding further talks with the First Division Association and others, and I hope and believe that there has been some movement.
	I now wish to summarise where I think we are and ask my noble friend to confirm my understanding. I have before me a table given to the unions last week. It is in the public domain, I checked that, and shows two pieces of arithmetic that are worth quoting. On the last occasion, I talked about the central importance in Whitehall of the national income statistics produced by the National Accounts Group. The numbers now given to the unions show that London posts in April 2008 will be 118 staff in the group; London to Newport 2008-09, 35; and London to Newport 2009-10, 16. If you add 35 and 16, it comes to 51, which when subtracted from 118 will mean 67 staff left in London. So the question is: is that it in 2010, or will there still be an escalator going down? I think that the Government are now saying that that is it, in the sense that there is certainly no escalator. For different reasons, we could look at another set of statistics for the total picture, but given that the House may have a limited capacity to digest statistics, perhaps I should concentrate on the National Accounts Group. Can my noble friend assure me that the earlier picture which everyone was led to believe reflected the Government's real intention and understanding of only a small consular rump left in London remains in place and confirm that the 65 staff do not have an automatic guillotine hanging over their heads?
	That leads to the overlapping but longer-term question of how far the new board will simply continue under the thumb of the Treasury. I am aware that this has been debated in the Cabinet Office, but the main point is that the Treasury cannot go on having its cake and eating it. It always controls resources directly. The problem is not just the overall control of resources, but also the contradiction that this relates to two even more important questions: the perception and actuality of the independence of the board, and the credibility to other people. I shall mention the Bank of England again in a minute.
	Does the Treasury want the ONS and the board to have a reputation for independence or not? Yes or no? I think that is a fair way of putting my finger onthe question. If it does, the best thing it can do is find a good psychoanalyst and ask them to look atthis rather advanced case of schizophrenia. After all, the Statistics Commission is not doing anything like the job the Government say they want the board to do.
	It is going to be difficult enough for the board to engender a reputation for independence. The least my noble friend can honourably do is not to say that the board will merely be able to "make representations" to the Treasury, because that does not help us; it means that the Treasury controls everything, although it is rather desperate that the board should have a reputation for independence. It cannot have this both ways. Rather, he needs to say that the board has responsibility for all these manpower questions, and if it has doubts about the resources to be able to do the job it is statutorily required to do, it ought to resign, because that is its own responsibility.
	Without going into the question of responsibility to the Cabinet Office, and I shall not go so far as to say that that is a red herring, I think the central issue is—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but we are talking about the location of the statistical board, not its relationship with the Treasury. We are on Report, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could direct himself to the amendment he has tabled.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but we are debating a group of amendments. I have agreed to put my amendment in the group. I have not been speaking directly on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, so I am saving the time of the House. I am only speaking once in this debate, and I have been very helpful to my noble friends. I think that remark was out of order.
	I am coming fairly near to the conclusions of my remarks. There are enormously important reasons why the ONS needs to regain its reputation for independence. The challenges facing statisticians at present are unprecedented. There is the example of the earnings index. I am still not clear how far that is to do with checking medians versus averages, taking into account City bonuses, equity gains and so on, but there is an issue there.
	Although the Bank of England ought to look at the mote in its own eye before criticising the ONS, it has said that,
	"the relocation programme poses a serious risk to the maintenance of the quality of macro-economic data".
	Does my noble friend believe that the Bank's anxieties have now been laid to rest? If so, can he draw my attention to the chapter and verse where it has said so?
	Will my noble friend confirm that there has been movement on the two key points that I have put to him? If he meets them in terms, I will not seek to divide the House. I will of course judge that when I have heard his response.

Lord Newby: My Lords, in an ideal world, both amendments would be unnecessary. The first deals with resources and the second with relocation, but they are linked, because with the relocation comes a cut in the resources available to the ONS.
	On Amendment No. 23, I reiterate the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which we have raised in the past. The Minister said that the amendment, or something like it, was unnecessary because the ONS had a five-year settlement. As the noble Baroness said, if the settlement is unsatisfactory, the fact that the ONS is saddled with it for five years is a demerit rather than something from which to take any satisfaction.
	Amendment No. 24, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, should be unnecessary. However, all those who have looked at the way in which the relocation has been handled, whether it is the unions or the Bank of England, have been very concerned that it has been done so badly that the key economic statistics produced by the ONS have been put in jeopardy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, we are looking for reassurance from the Minister that the Government and the ONS have taken notice of what has been said and that the speed with which the relocation is taking place has been moderated to be certain that key economic and social statistics have not been jeopardised in the mean time.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I support both these important amendments. With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Amendment No. 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, it is important that the board is happy that the resources available to it are adequate, particularly if there are problems in the first year. Resources should be adequate over the five years, and the board should have the ability to say when they have not been.
	On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, despite the Minister trying to impress on us the charms of Newport, if the board is unable to get the staff required there, it should have the flexibility to locate them in such other places as may be appropriate.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I ask the Minister to address the point about adequate resources in a slightly different way. The future is more important than the past and the Bill is intended to create a new set of circumstances, which it will. The independence of the board is at the heart of the Government's endeavour. No doubt, under the funding agreement, terms and conditions will be set. If they are set in a certain way, the resources may turn out to be adequate but if they are set in another way, they may turn out to be inadequate. I have in mind the regime within funding agreements of core targets and performance indicators and everything that can be included in such a regime.
	It is probably true that the Government are moving away from what has on many occasions been rather a heavy-handed approach to the terms on which public bodies should be funded towards a light-touch approach. I should be most grateful if the Minister could assure the House that we are talking about true independence, a light touch and not too many core targets and performance indicators in the future.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in seeking to reassure the noble Viscount on that last point, I wish to avoid going into too much detail on the annual report which the board has to make. That is the burden of Amendment No. 23, which I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw.
	To what extent should we prescribe in legislation specific aspects of the board's activity? The noble Lord quite rightly asked why we should not have a light touch. I cannot think of a heavier touch than prescribing in considerable detail in legislation exactly what the board must do. As I have emphasised in the past, our purpose is to create an independent board. It seems a little odd, then, that we should write into the statute detailed, specific information that the board should include in its annual report beyond what we already have. The board will recognise its responsibility—it is publicly accountable. It knows what it will have to identify in broad terms to the wider public and to Parliament. What should be resisted is excessive prescription in these terms, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, enjoined me to do.
	A major part of the board's activities will be monitoring the quality and comprehensiveness of, and good practice in, official statistics underthe wide-ranging powers that it already has under Clause 8. Under them, it can report on matters of funding and resources. In monitoring and reporting on the quality and comprehensiveness of, and good practice in, statistics, the board will be able to comment on all issues that it considers help determine quality and comprehensiveness. Clearly, financial and staff resources will often be relevant factors, and the board will comment on them. If the board was of the view that statistical quality had been badly affected by insufficient resources being devoted to the production of certain statistics, it could comment publicly to that effect. I assume that it would do so as it is clearly its role.
	I make it clear that we would expect Parliament also to play a full part in examining the resources of the board and others who produce official statistics, including identifying any concerns that it may have, and holding to account those responsible for making decisions on the allocation of resources. The Bill therefore places on the board obligations with regard to resources and its powers and we do not need further definition.
	Grouped with the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 23 is Amendment No. 24 of my noble friend Lord Lea. I recognise that the location of the ONS has been a matter of some controversy and that this House, the other place and those elsewhere have concerns about the impact on staff, the quality of statistics and the links between statisticians and users of statistics in London.
	Let us recognise that the ONS is not unique in relocating work. Relocation is a cross-government initiative intended to move 20,000 jobs outside of the south-east. The vast majority of Members who speak in this House, and certainly of those who speak in the other place, are generally of the view that relocation is a good idea in broad terms to reduce overheating in the south-east, to spread jobs more widely in the country and to promote a degree of regional policy, but as soon as any particular case emerges, it is argued that the department and function concerned ought not to move.
	This move has been going on for a considerable time. We are not in the early stages, but more than halfway through. I can confirm my noble friend's statistics: there are now 1,200 staff of the ONS in Newport and about 600 in London. That is just about right. He was right also that the numbers going to Newport will increase and that the numbers remaining in London will decrease. I can confirm to him that about 50 to 100 staff will remain in London in 2010. They will be there for essential operational need. As he emphasised, it is expected that national accounts staff are likely to form the majority of London-based staff in 2010 because of the significance of their role, which he described to the House. Of course, he is right that the board can at any point make the case for retaining more staff in London. If it feels that there is an essential operational need for that, that will be its decision.
	On the question in broad terms of whether the board in future could decide where it should be located as a whole, other factors come into play. The board needs to identify where it can best achieve the objectives that the Government have set before it, but it would be passing belief if it were suggested that the Government, Parliament or this House should give any government body the inalienable right to decide exactly where it would locate itself, with Parliament and the British taxpayer voting the necessary resources. That is not acceptable; it could not be, otherwise we would have every non-governmental public body located somewhere in Whitehall. Certainly, they would be located pretty close to London, because they would be able to put forward two propositions: first, quite rightly, that they and their contribution to the life of the nation and public policy are highly significant—and in every case they would be right that their roles were significant, or they would not exist for the functions that they had. Secondly, it is always the case that the closer you can get to the Prime Minister, the greater your influence is likely to be. What an excellent argument for a geographical location as close to Downing Street as possible. Could we conceivably run government policy on the proposition that a non-governmental public body could locate itself wherever it liked and that Parliament would be obliged to provide the resources? Of course not.
	I can tell my noble friend that if the board identifies that its functions can be more effectively pursued in another location, of course it can make its case. There are proper procedures in which boards make their case with regard to the location of their functions. It is then for the Chief Secretary to analyse each case and for public resources to be brought into play according to the decisions of Parliament on their allocation. That is an entirely proper function. We could not possibly put into a particular piece of legislation a guarantee that a board in future could locate itself wherever it chose.
	I recognise my noble friend's concern about the procedures with regard to the transfer. We are at the midpoint of that transition; it is a programme that has been going for several years and has three more years to run until 2010. This is a difficult phase for the Office for National Statistics. It is important that the office maintains its standards, and of course it will endeavour to do so. If it is the case that an early transfer of certain staff should not be effected because it causes anxiety among very significant consumers of statistics, the programme may be moderated in those terms. In broad terms, the Office for National Statistics is following a pattern that several other bodies and departments of government have followed with regard to relocation. Of course, relocation is never easy, but we should consider that for the staff, relocation to a place such as South Wales significantly decreases their housing costs and therefore potentially enhances their living standards. We are guaranteed that we can retain staff. We have a higher staff retainment level at Newport at present than we do in London. We should not underestimate the mobility of graduates; the extent to which our university provision right across the United Kingdom is such that we can guarantee the flow of highly qualified manpower in Newport.
	I say to my noble friend that I recognise his anxieties. This is a difficult time, as it is mid-point in the move. He will recognise, however, that the Government cannot accept in legislation an amendment that effectively would give to the Office for National Statistics a position that is not vouchsafed for any other government body; nor is it conceivable that any Government at any future time would do so. I hope that he will recognise therefore that he has brought to the attention of the House the necessity for very effective action regarding the transfer, but I hope that having raised the issue he will not move his amendment. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, we have listened to my noble friend's overkill on how we perceive the location question. I asked a question about the Bank of England. There are quite serious concerns. Is everything in the garden lovely now? Can he draw to my attention where the Bank of England has hadits problems, which—I say to my noble friend the Whip—do refer to location, and say that they have been dealt with?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I did refer to that in broad terms. Of course the move is causing some difficulty and anxiety; it is bound to. The Bank of England speaking up in those terms gives a salutary warning to the Office for National Statistics that it must preserve the quality of its work while effecting this change, as it has undertaken to do.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, "The amendments are unnecessary—but". The "but" is important. Great concerns have been expressed not only about the generic issue of resources, which is addressed by my amendment, but about the specifics of the relocation to Newport, which is addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, in his amendment.
	To paraphrase what the Minister said: "We told you all along that the Statistics Board was going to be a great, independent and free-standing body. But that only applies when we choose it to be so, because we will interfere whenever we want to, because it is a government body". I hope that those who seek to become involved in the Statistics Board understand the rules of the game that the Minister has outlined. The board will have one way in particular of expressing itself, which is its annual report. The Minister said that it could cover resources; I hope it does. I hope it covers any other aspect where the board is dissatisfied with the way in which the Government are trying to stop it acting in the way it thinks right for its work of producing good quality statistics, whether it be forced relocations or any other aspect of government policy. I hope that the Statistics Board will read the debates that we have had and be encouraged by the fact that we want to keep these things in the public domain and not hidden behind closed doors in the Treasury. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Before Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
	"Access to the Prime Minister
	The National Statistician shall have right of direct access to the Prime Minister on any matter involving the integrity of official statistics or a dispute with a government department regarding official statistics."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, Amendment No. 25 inserts a new clause before Clause 27, which grants to the National Statistician the right of direct access to the Prime Minister. We would not normally expect to see such a clause in a Bill, because access to the Prime Minister is more an issue of custom and practice than a matter of statute. We tabled the amendment for Report following an unsatisfactory debate on similar amendments in Committee.
	We firmly believe that the work of the National Statistician in achieving high standards for statistics across the whole of the Government will be aided by the informal pressures that can be brought to bear behind the scenes. The mere fact that the National Statistician can have access to the Prime Minister adds cards to her hand in dealing with other government departments, and it may be the single most important weapon available to her. I understand that it was the case when the noble Lord, Lord Moser, was National Statistician that he had access to the Prime Minister. When we had our debate in Committee, we did not have the direct wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who was not in his place. I expect that he has seen from Hansard that several of us prayed in aid our understanding of what happened in his day, and I hope that we accurately reported him.
	Something seems to have changed since the noble Lord's day and, according to the Minister, access to the Prime Minister now needs to be negotiated through the Cabinet Secretary. That opens up the possibility that the Cabinet Secretary might, for whatever reason, deny or hinder access. That would not be satisfactory, not least because the Cabinet Secretary may be drawn into the substance of whether the National Statistician's case was better than that of the potentially offending departments.
	My amendment merely reinstates the former practice and has the advantage of emphasising the personal role of the National Statistician within Whitehall. We debated earlier the muddle of roles and we do not think that that has been fully resolved by the amendments we have now passed; but we wanted to be clear that the National Statistician, not the chairman of the board, is to lead on the issue of statistical standards and practices in government departments. I beg to move

Lord Moser: My Lords, I support the amendment, and I speak only because my name was mentioned. It is true that in my day the role of the post of what is now called the National Statistician—then the director of the Central Statistical Office—came directly under the Prime Minister. I was directly responsible to the Prime Minister, and this was real. I served three Prime Ministers, all of whom took a direct interest. Although I need hardly say that the link was encouraging, its importance was not so much personal as the fact that—because we had a decentralised system, to which we have referred at various times—if there were problems with statistics in other departments and the National Statistician found it difficult to deal with them, the post had the Prime Minister directly behind it. That was invaluable. It made the running of a decentralised system much easier than it might otherwise have been.
	In the other amendment, which is now part of the Bill, the so-called residual responsibilities would move anyhow from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office, and therefore, with that direct link, through the Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister. That would ensure the link anyhow. But just in case that amendment does not commend itself to the House of Commons, or to us if it returns here, I would support this amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the amendment seeks to establish that the National Statistician will have direct access to the Prime Minister on any matter involving the integrity of official statistics or a dispute with a government department regarding official statistics. As I said in Committee, the National Statistician, through the Cabinet Secretary, already has that right of access under the present framework for national statistics. We intend to carry this forward; we just do not consider it necessary or appropriate to put on the face of the Bill. It is not in statute at present and we do not intend to put it in statute now.
	I remind the House of the status of the National Statistician which will be established by the Bill if and when it becomes an Act. The post will be statutory. He or she will be the head of the executive office in the same way as the current head of the Office for National Statistics, reporting in the future to a board instead of Ministers. The post will be a Crown appointment, provided for by Clause 5, and the holder will be a full member of the board, sharing responsibility with other board members for ultimate decision-making and its chief executive.
	The answer to the noble Baroness's query on that is straightforward. He or she will take primary responsibility for the integrity of national statistics in any discussions with government departments or others. Clause 27 states that the National Statistician is also the chief statistical adviser to the board on all professional and technical statistical matters—we are reinforcing that status today—and he or she will remain the head of the Government Statistical Service and the Government's chief statistical adviser, providing leadership to the professional statisticians in government. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, discussed the crucial responsibilities involved.
	The nearest comparators to the National Statistician are probably the Government's Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser, or perhaps the heads of the Government Economic Service and the Government Social Research Service. However, none of those is a statutory post, unlike this one, and while they are leaders of their respective professions in government, they have no right of access to the Prime Minister, statutory or otherwise. Nor are there requirements on the Government to follow their advice or to give reasons if they do not do so. But that is exactly what this legislation will require of the National Statistician.
	I am sure that noble Lords recognise that the National Statistician's position is unrivalled among professionals in government. I recognise the concerns of noble Lords to ensure the influence of the National Statistician, both behind the scenes and in public. I reassure the House that the Government take this very seriously, share this aim and have tried to respond to it in the Bill. However, given the status of the National Statistician in the new arrangements, they are bound to carry weight within government at the very highest levels.
	The bedrock of this new system is transparency and accountability to Parliament. In the unlikely event that the board or National Statistician has a problem that really cannot be resolved within government, they may go public with their concerns, with all the authority that they would carry behind them. The board, of which the National Statistician is a member, already has wide-ranging powers to comment and report on official statistics. I would be surprised if any public comment by them went unheeded. That alone should encourage Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to take the National Statistician's views very seriously, as all preceding Prime Ministers have done.
	There is no question about the status of the National Statistician in the Bill, and there is therefore no need for the amendment. I hope that it will be withdrawn.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moser, for taking part in this debate.
	I hear what the Minister said; it is a pity that he has again reiterated the formula that access is via the Cabinet Secretary and not direct to the Prime Minister. Towards the end of his remarks, he pointed to the ability of the board to comment publicly. We are starting to think that about the only weapon in the board's armoury against any forces of evil that still stalk Whitehall will be their ability to report publicly. We hope that they will use that judiciously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 27 [National Statistician: advisory functions]:

Lord Newby: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Clause 27, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) The National Statistician shall be the government's principal advisor on statistics and provide professional leadership to all persons engaged in statistical production and publication."

Lord Newby: My Lords, unless I am very much mistaken, the words in the amendment are almost identical to those used by the Minister a moment ago when he described the role of the National Statistician. That being so, there seems to be no reason why the Minister should not agree to the amendment.
	Why do we think that the amendment should be agreed to? First, because the Bill explicitly states the National Statistician's position as the board's principal adviser. If the National Statistician is also the Government's principal adviser, it seems logical that—as well as referring to the board—you would say so.
	The second reason relates to the fact that, under the devolved structure that we have in statistics, and particularly with the board now being at a greater arm's length from government than in the past in order to give it the required independence, there is a danger of a them-and-us situation developing between the National Statistician and his colleagues and statisticians working in individual government departments. This has the potential to be exacerbated where the National Statistician asks for statistics produced by an individual department to be assessed and where the Ministers in that department may be reluctant for that to happen. An antagonistic situation could develop over whether various statistics should be designated as national statistics. In those circumstances, one could imagine Ministers being relatively belligerent about the role of the National Statistician interfering, as they might see it, in what they do. Therefore, it is important to entrench the fact that in all circumstances the National Statistician is required to provide leadership across the piece. I was reassured that the Minister said that that was indeed the role of the National Statistician but, for the reason I have just given, it would be helpful if that role were specified in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, we continueto support this amendment and hope that the Government will consider carefully the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Government Amendment No. 32 makes it clear that the National Statistician is to be responsible for official statistics standards. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will establish the National Statistician as the proper channel for communicating these standards to the Government and to the wider statistical industry. The National Statistician is the right person to undertake this responsibility.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am gratefulto noble Lords for speaking to this amendment, although the previous debate probably covered a great deal of the ground in question.
	Of course, we appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment but we consider that the Bill already provides for the effect that it seeks to achieve. As I said in the previous debate, we are giving the National Statistician a position of unique significance compared with other leading professionals within government, and that difference is set out in statute.
	The Bill is clear on the National Statistician's professional competence. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, agreed that it was "obvious" that the National Statistician would be the Government's principal adviser on statistics. He was right in Committee and we agree with him, but the arguments are worth repeating here for the sake of clarity.
	I emphasise that the board is the legal entity. However, in practice, the National Statistician, as the professional head of the Government Statistical Service, will be the point of professional advice, either through statisticians in departments or formally, because of its legal personality and accountability, via the board itself. This is already clear at Clauses 8,9 and 27 of the Bill.
	Clause 8 provides that the board may report any concerns that it has about the quality of any official statistics, good practice in relation to them or their comprehensiveness to the person responsible for producing those statistics. That gives the board a very large remit to advise government on a wide range of issues relating to official statistics.
	Clause 9 gives the board a remit to develop and maintain definitions, methodologies, classifications and standards for official statistics. Following on from this, under Clause 27, the National Statistician is explicitly the board's chief adviser on all professional and technical statistical matters. Indeed, the board must publish and report to Parliament, including giving reasons for overruling the National Statistician on professional, technical matters, if it does so.
	The Government are further reinforcing the National Statistician's role with the amendments that we are moving today. They will provide further clarity and transparency in relation to the functions of the executive office, underlining the National Statistician's professional status by ensuring that he or she is responsible forthe development and maintenance of definitions, methodologies, classifications and standards for official statistics, wherever produced.
	Amendment No. 26 would require the National Statistician to provide professional leadership to all persons in government engaged in the production or release of statistics. Inevitably, given the status of the National Statistician within the Bill, they will have to fulfil that role. In this capacity, as has been already said, we intend for the National Statistician to remain as the head of the Government Statistical Service and continue to provide professional leadership to those working on statistics in government.
	We have, however, chosen to retain the decentralised statistical system, and this decision has been widely supported, including in the other place by the Treasury Select Committee. A decentralised system inevitably means that statisticians remain working within government departments. It is not appropriate to legislate within the Civil Service structure for lines of accountability between staff working in departments and the National Statistician working in another department.
	The amendment would establish a relationship between the National Statistician and statisticians working in departments that would not be workable under our decentralised system. Given, as I indicated, that the National Statistician's role as chief statistical adviser to departments via the board is clearly established in the clauses identified in the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I hope the Minister will not object too strongly if I completely disagree with his last point. If he agrees with the content of the amendment—which, in terms, he has—how can he then argue that it would be completely inappropriate to pass the amendment? The only argument with which I have some sympathy is that the point is so blindingly obvious that the amendment should not be necessary. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 28 [National Statistician: executive functions]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 27:
	Clause 28, page 12, line 31, leave out "National"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentsNos. 29 to 32:
	Clause 28, page 12, line 37, leave out subsections (5) to (8)
	Clause 28, page 13, line 8, after "section" insert "and section (Executive office)"
	Clause 28, page 13, line 10, leave out subsection (10)
	After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
	"Executive office
	(1) The National Statistician must establish an executive office of the Board to assist him in his exercise of—
	(a) the function of the Board under section 9(1)(a) (development and maintenance of definitions, methodologies, classifications and standards for official statistics),(b) the function of the Board under section 17 (production of statistics),(c) the function of the Board under section 18 (retail prices index),(d) the function of the Board under section 19 (statistical services), and(e) any other function of the Board which he may exercise under section 28(2).
	(2) The executive office is, subject to this Act, to consist of—
	(a) the National Statistician (who is to be its head),(b) the other executive members of the Board, and(c) such other employees of the Board as the National Statistician may assign to it.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the National Statistician may delegate any function of the Board referred to in that subsection to any other member of the executive office.
	(4) The delegation of a function by the National Statistician under subsection (3) does not prevent him from exercising the function himself."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Head of Assessment]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 33:
	Clause 29, page 13, line 19, at end insert—
	"(3) The Head of Assessment—
	(a) if an executive member of the Board, may not exercise functions of the National Statistician under section 28,(b) may not be a member of the executive office of the Board under section (Executive office)(2)(b) or (c), and(c) may not in any other way take part in the production of statistics by the Board."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Separation of functions]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentsNos. 34 and 35:
	Clause 30, page 13, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"( ) The following may not take part in any assessment or determination of the Board under section 11(1) or 12(1)—
	(a) an executive member of the Board, not being the National Statistician or Head of Assessment;(b) a person assigned to the executive office of the Board under section (Executive office)(2)(c)."
	Clause 30, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (4)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 32 [Delegation]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 36:
	Clause 32, page 14, line 10, leave out "National"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Before Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
	"Information Commissioner
	(1) The Information Commissioner may assess any aspects of the way in which the Board holds, uses, discloses or shares information.
	(2) The Board must provide any assistance or access that the Information Commissioner requests in connection with an assessment under subsection (1).
	(3) If the Information Commissioner carries out an assessment under subsection (1) he is to report his findings to the Board.
	(4) The Information Commissioner may publish any report he makes under subsection (3) and any such report must be laid before each House of Parliament."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 inserts a new clause before Clause 34.Clauses 34 to 50 contain various powers and obligations relating to information, including personal information. They allow significant data sharing and we debated them fully in Committee. We were grateful that the Minister gave considered replies to the various amendments that were tabledin Committee. My purpose in tabling those amendments, and that of my noble friend Lord Northesk, who is unable to be with us today, was to establish the boundaries of the very wide powers contained in those provisions.
	We were in general satisfied with the nature of the replies given in Committee and I believe that we established two important issues. I should like to read a short extract from Hansard where the Minister said:
	"It is not our intention that these data-sharing clauses should allow the board to become a general repository for raw data or to introduce the widespread sharing of confidential information throughout government".
	That is the first important issue. These clauses are not to be used as a vehicle for the Statistics Board to become a hub for, say, the identity card scheme. The Minister went on to say:
	"Any information passed under the clauses must be used for the statistical purposes of the receiving authority or the board".—[Official Report, 23/5/07; col. 746.]
	The second important issue is that information may be disclosed only for statistical purposes.
	I have repeated what the Minister said in Committee because we found those statements very important and we wanted to be quite sure that we understand the Government's intention in relation to the data-sharing clauses. Fundamentally, they are not a part of wider sharing of information across government and statistical purposes are at the heart of the transfer of information. I hope that the Minister will confirm today what he said in Committee. If so, I believe that while there are aspects of the clauses which still cause us concern, we will not seek further changes to the clauses themselves.
	Amendment No. 37, however, raises an additional issue in relation to the powers of the Information Commissioner. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in saying that the Information Commissioner is doing an excellent job, albeit with limited resources. The Information Commissioner has no direct powers under the Bill. Under Section 57 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he can assess the processing of personal data if, and only if, the data controller consents to the assessment, otherwise his powers are limited to cases where a request comes from the person affected by the processing of data. Too often, individuals will be unaware that there has been incorrect processing of their data. The ability of the Information Commissioner to act without a request is important. I understand that, under EU law, the Information Commissioner should be able to initiate his own investigations but the Data Protection Act does not give him that power.
	The Minister will doubtless be aware that the issues about the Information Commissioner's role have arisen in a similar way in respect of the Serious Crime Bill, which is now being considered in another place. The Government have undertaken to bring forward amendments to meet the concerns of the Information Commissioner, which were expressed during consideration of that Bill in your Lordships' House. Admittedly the data-sharing provisions in that Bill make this Bill look like a teddy bears' picnic, but the principles are the same, and I hope that the Minister will welcome the placing of this modest additional safeguard in the Bill.
	The damage that can be done to individuals by the incorrect disclosure of their information can be incalculable and, once done, cannot easily be undone. Therefore, it behoves us to ensure that as many protections for the individual as possible are enshrined in the Bill. Against that background, I beg to move.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I support this extremely important proposed new clause. One of the major problems that is starting to arise in discussions in the information security world is that, although the Government are using the Information Commissioner in Bills as a safeguard, he does not often have the powers to act as one because of his not being allowed to go into a company unless he is asked to, as a result of either a complaint or the data controller asking him in. That means that people can ride roughshod over and go round the Data Protection Act and all the other Acts in which he is supposed to be the check, without let or hindrance unless such a complaint is made. Often it is not, because people do not know how or where to do it.
	Also, the penalties that the Information Commissioner can ask for are far too low. That is a completely separate subject, but it needs to be looked at in the near future so I add that comment now. We have to look at making him a much more effective safeguard. The proposed new clause starts on that path and it is essential that we agree to it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we must be getting near the end of Report if the noble Baroness can refer to any part of it as a teddy bears' picnic; that has been far from my experience with regard to our debates on these important issues in the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House.
	The Information Commissioner has raised no issues concerning this legislation. To the contrary, he has been very positive about it. That should considerably reassure all noble Lords. I wish to emphasise again what I said in Committee on this important point. Not everything that I say in Committee is always expressed with such graphic intensity that I deserve to be held to every line of it on every subsequent occasion, but the section that the noble Baroness quoted was a categoric statement of the Government's position on the Bill.
	As I said at Second Reading, overall the Information Commissioner has welcomed the fact that the Bill recognises the importance of ensuring that personal information is used only where necessary, and that confidentiality is respected. He very much welcomed the creation of a criminal offence for the illegal disclosure of personal information in Clause 36, which he believes should act as the significant deterrent.
	Information held by the board will be used only for statistical purposes—I emphasise that again—as all the board's functions are of course statistical. Furthermore, personal information held by the board will be protected against unlawful disclosure by a criminal sanction. Given the nature of the data-sharing provisions in the Bill and the powers that the Information Commissioner already has, it does not seem appropriate to include such an amendment. That is the basic reason why the amendment, although well intentioned, is unnecessary.
	There are several further reasons for not accepting this amendment. First, we think it unlikely that the Information Commissioner would need to use the powers in this clause. Given that much statistical information is given voluntarily through surveys, the board has a strong interest in ensuring that the confidentiality of the information is held secure and that people trust the board to hold its information. The ONS has a good working relationship with the Information Commissioner and often asks his or his office's advice on matters relating to the protection and handling of information, so previous practice is a guide to future conduct. Secondly, I should note that the Data Protection Act applies to the board as a body dealing with personal information. The board must therefore be registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner and comply with the data principles in relation to all personal data with respect to which it is the data controller. Finally, the Information Commissioner already has statutory powers to undertake the activities set out in this amendment.
	The noble Baroness raised an important point about the Bill. In doing so, she sought assurances that what was said in Committee is definitive, and I confirm that it is. I emphasise that the data-sharing clauses in the Bill are for statistical purposes only. It is not the Government's intention that the board will be a conduit for information across government. That is the definitive government policy. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that statement and withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his comments. I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating the important points that came out of our debates in Committee, which was very useful. However, he said that the Information Commissioner already has statutory powers to undertake activities that are covered by the amendment. My understanding is that that is not the case. With that lack of clarity, it would not be right for me to press this matter to a Division at this stage. Between now and Third Reading, I shall research how the Minister's reading of the statutory powers fits with my understanding of them.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall also look at that very closely before Third Reading.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 61 [Orders and regulations]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentNo. 38:
	Clause 61, page 30, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) A statutory instrument containing an order made by a Minister of the Crown under section 21 that includes consequential or incidental provision amending any relevant legislation is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall speakalso to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. This groupof amendments responds positively to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It recommended that where underClause 21 a Minister of the Crown or a Welsh or Northern Irish Minister in the devolved Administrations delegates one of his functions to the board, in so far as the terms of that delegation amend primary legislation, it will be subject to negative resolution in the appropriate legislature. This group of amendments gives effectto that recommendation. I should note that these amendments do not apply to Scottish Ministers because, as agreed with the Scottish Executive, they are not able to delegate functions to the board. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved AmendmentsNos. 39 and 40:
	Clause 61, page 30, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) A statutory instrument containing an order made by a Welsh ministerial authority under section 21 that includes consequential or incidental provision amending any relevant legislation is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales."
	Clause 61, page 30, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) A statutory rule containing an order made by a Northern Ireland department under section 21 that includes consequential or incidental provision amending any relevant legislationis subject to negative resolution, within the meaning ofsection 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.
	( ) In this section, "relevant legislation" means—
	(a) an Act of Parliament;(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(c) Northern Ireland legislation;(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly forWales."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Palestine: Gaza Strip

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, withthe leave of the House, I shall now repeat aStatement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"We are deeply concerned about the recent violence and the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. The violence we have seen has been completely unacceptable with summary executions, attacks against hospitals and the cruel treatment of captives. Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority who seek a peaceful two-state solution."Our immediate concern is the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We fully support the statement of the quartet and efforts to meet the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. In this regard, we welcome Israel's decision to facilitate humanitarian access and ensure the provision of basic services. We continue to call on all parties to respect the human rights of those in Gaza and to ensure the safety and security of international workers."But it is also important that extremists are not allowed to derail the political process. The international community is united in its desire to continue moving forward the peace process. The Foreign Secretary spoke to President Abbas on 14 June as well as US Secretary Rice and the Egyptian, Omani and Qatari Foreign Ministers. The Foreign Secretary is currently discussing the situation with her European counterparts at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg today, where they will also discuss the situation with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzippi Livni. Prime Minister Olmert is currently in Washington, and we look forward to discussion at the UN Security Council on Wednesday."We welcome the Arab League's engagement at its meeting on Friday. The Arab world has a key role to play in supporting President Abbas's efforts to restore order to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We also welcome Egypt and Saudi Arabia's efforts to promote dialogue."The emergency Government, who were sworn in on 17 June, have our full support. We will continue to work with all those, including President Abbas, who are dedicated to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The emergency Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, has said that his priorities are restoring security and improving the economic and humanitarian situation. We share those goals. "I would like to reiterate the Government's commitment to finding a solution that will result in a comprehensive and lasting peace with two states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security. "Obviously, our thoughts remain with Alan Johnston. We continue to call for his immediate release and welcome the efforts being taken towards that goal".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. Will she agree—as I am sure she will—that this is a critically dangerous situation since it deals a very serious blow to the hopes, which, frankly, were never very high anyway, of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, since one of the two states appears to be dividing itself into two bits?
	We agree with the noble Baroness that the first concerns must be for the 1.4 million people in the Gaza Strip who could starve and die within days unless vital equipment and supplies are maintained and get through to them. Is it correct that although Israel has eased the boycott on vital goods, the immediate problem is that the breakdown of law and order in the Gaza Strip means that no one is there to receive some of the trucks when they cross the border? That applies particularly to gasoline, without which of course all transport will come to a halt in the Gaza Strip.
	What agencies still dare to operate, and operate bravely, in Gaza? Can they be specifically helped, supported and encouraged? How many people fleeing Gaza are being held up and live in tunnels and other temporary structures at the Erez crossing? There have been chilling reports of people being stuck there for days.
	I turn to the wider implications. Do not these ugly developments confirm once again that democratic elections do not always lead to democracy, or make those elected into democrats? Does she accept that while there continue no doubt to be moderates—people who would like an agreement—among the Hamas factions in Gaza, the area seems to have fallen into the hands of throat-slitting gangsters?
	The West Bank is now completely Fatah-controlled and with an all-Fatah emergency Government sworn in by President Mahmoud Abbas. Do our Government see this as a temporary stopping point on the weary, and now blood-strewn, road back to Palestinian unity, or is it more likely that the Government of Israel will see the re-occupation of Gaza as the only alternative to a Gaza completely controlled by a now violent and hostile force which of course is sworn to destroy Israel?
	Does the noble Baroness agree with the assessment of one West Bank Fatah official that the immediate future will be,
	"very good for the West Bank and very bad for Gaza",
	implying, of course, that a Hamas-free Palestinian Authority will now get maximum outside aid, funding and supplies for the West Bank, while Gaza will be completely cut off? Is that the right way to look at the situation, because that seems to spell even greater dangers than we have now?
	Finally, what about the quartet and its plan to reconvene on Saturday? Did she notice the comment of the UN official, Alvaro de Soto, last week that he now thinks that the quartet has become a sideshow? I hope that she does not agree. What priorities will we be urging through the EU spokesman, Javier Solana, in this confused and ominous scene?

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place, limited though the Statement is.
	This is indeed a desperate situation for the Palestinians, the Israelis, the region as a whole and for us all, but is it not exactly the scenario about which people have been repeatedly warning? Does the noble Baroness recall the World Bank warning about two years ago that you have a tinder box if you so block the economy by walls and closures that people cannot work and look after their families? Does she recall that as soon as Hamas was boycotted after the elections, there were warnings that if the West backed Fatah against Hamas, there could well be civil war? How could this therefore have come as a surprise?
	I listened to the Statement in the other place and I was surprised at the level of surprise. What progress can you make if you do not even talk to elected leaders, however opposed to your point of view they may be? Surely, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice often puts it, it is no use just talking to your friends if you want to solve problems. How can Palestinian politicians show that elections and non-violence are worthwhile if that route does not lift roadblocks and the quartet will not talk to those who have been elected, while at the same time not enforcing what they ask of the other side?
	Does the noble Baroness now not think that it was a grave error not to talk to Hamas when it was elected, and when it was part of the national unity Government? What effect does she think that it had on the development otherwise of responsible government in the Palestinian areas to set up the temporary international mechanism to bypass the elected Government? Elsewhere in the world, the Government channel things through elected Governments in order to develop good governance. How did it help not to pay salaries of the very people who were most likely to lend stability, such as doctors and teachers? Was it not a mistake to imprison Hamas MPs, as the Israelis have done—the very ones who are most likely to see the parliamentary route as worthwhile? What are we doing about that?
	Now, with the lessons of that failed policy for all to see, are we now simply to seek further to marginalise Hamas and support only Fatah? Surely that feeds the extremists. Does it make sense, therefore, now to accept the emergency Government, as we have rushed to do? I should like the Minister to comment on that. Could that not once again be seen as backing only a favoured side, regardless of how the Palestinians themselves voted?
	What are we going to do now to ensure that the quartet itself is not marginalised, that it is seen as four equal partners, not as partial to one side only? Does the Minister agree with the leaked report to which the noble Lord just referred from the UN Special Representative to Palestine, in which he concluded that the UN was in effect being sat on by the US? Does she take lessons on the way forward in the light of his comments? Will she address some of the practical problems that we now face? It is a very grave situation. How will the EU and the UN now get aid into Gaza? How will we prevent breakdown on the West Bank? What actions does she think Israel might take in relation to Gaza? Is she worried that refugees from the Palestinian areas will add to the flood of refugees from Iraq into the region, and what is being done to address that? What, above all, is being done to address the sense of injustice in this region, the illegal settlements, the root of the war, the road and border closures, and the withholding of customs revenues?
	The EU is a major aid giver to this area. The Israelis have a very valuable trade agreement with the EU. The EU is a member of the quartet. Israeli citizens must be exceedingly worried about their future security and their very future in this situation. What different role will the UK now urge on the EU, given the failure of the policy to date? As in Northern Ireland, surely the peace and security craved by both sides will come only through prosperity and justice, not through oppression or force on either side.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for responding to the Statement. It is indeed a very difficult, dangerous and complex situation, and we are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the fact that food prices are rising, as well as the fact that Israel immediately closed all the borders. The noble Lord is right that Israel has said that it is easing the boycott. I hope that it is. I have no further information, but I will certainly follow the situation very closely. He asked how many people have been held up at the crossing since the violence escalated. I have no figures. I do not know whether they are known but, if they are, I will certainly write to him and place a copy in the Library.
	The noble Lord suggested that Gaza is now controlled by violent militias. He is absolutely right. I draw a distinction between the Hamas miltias who have perpetrated the gross violence in Gaza and Hamas at the political level. There is a difference between the two that we would be wise to remember. He referred to the Government on the West Bank. We believe that this is an emergency Government that cannot exist in perpetuity. There will have to be re-elections, which is what President Abbas has said. The noble Lord suggested that Israel might wish to reoccupy the West Bank. I do not believe that it does. I do not believe that Israel as a state or the Israeli people want to reoccupy that land; I do not believe that there is a safe future for Israel if it reoccupies that land. The noble Lord repeated the suggestion that the recent troubles and the establishment of the new emergency Government were good for the West Bank and bad for Gaza. Our hope is that, although we are deeply concerned about the present situation, ultimately we trust that it will be good for both the West Bank and the people of Gaza, because we cannot allow a situation to continue in which the Palestinian people are so split.
	I understand that the quartet meeting will sadly no longer take place at the weekend, although there were some very welcome conclusions to a very lengthy quartet discussion on 15 June. Our priorities for the quartet must be practical and ensure that the necessary assistance gets to the people in Gaza in particular, and to the Palestinian people on the West Bank. In respect of which agencies are currently active in the West Bank, I know that UN agencies, including UNRWA, have withdrawn. I am not sure which agencies are currently there, but I will seek to find out and inform the noble Lord.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly stated that this is a very limited Statement: it is a very early Statement. As noble Lords will know, the GAERC—the general affairs council—is meeting today and Prime Minister Olmert is in the United States. I hope that there will be more to say on this subject in the coming days. The noble Baroness spoke of Israel, the border crossings and the illegal settlements. We have been urging Israel at every possible level and at every possible opportunity to stop building illegal settlements and to ensure that if there is be a barrier it is not built on Palestinian land. These are illegal actions. We say that to Israel all the time.
	The noble Baroness expressed surprise at the surprise. We have tried to engage with members of the former National Unity Government who were not members of Hamas. Our problem with Hamas is that it is a political party with which we cannot have a real dialogue because it continually says that it wishes to obliterate one of the parties to the dialogue. It therefore cannot be a proper partner for dialogue. We believe that the temporary international mechanism is important, has been important and will continue to be important and necessary. We must not forget that this year the EU has paid more money to the Palestinian people than in any year previously. While the problems are enormous and the Palestinian people need and must continue to have that money, we must not forget that we are paying them a requisite amount.
	As regards Hamas MPs who have been imprisoned, we, too, believe that is wrong and have called for their release, which we will continue to do. We want to assist all the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. I referred earlier to practical problems and solutions. I believe that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is today speaking with her colleagues in the GAERC about practical solutions to ensure that the people in Gaza and the West Bank have access to basic necessities such as food, water and electricity.
	There have been and continue to be terrible injustices in the Middle East. We are working with both sides to ensure that those injustices are solved. We have impressed on the Israeli Government the need not just to dismantle the settlements and the barriers but also to pay the tax revenues which are the right and due of the Palestinian people. My right honourable friend will certainly discuss that with the Israeli Foreign Minister today. She will suggest that now more than ever is the time to ensure that those tax revenues are paid. As I understand it, Israel has paid back $100 million, but $750 million still has to be paid. Israel should and must pay that money back to the Palestinian people.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that Israel will not reoccupy the West Bank. I have it in mind that Israel is occupying the West Bank, continues to build settlements and to pour people into it, continues to confiscate Palestinian land and blow up Palestinian houses, and continues not to talk to the elected Palestinian Government. All I can do is reiterate what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Why are the Government in any way surprised by events if people are treated like this? We encourage them to behave democratically. They produce a democratic government and what do we do? We say that we will not speak to them. We spoke to the IRA which was not democratic, but we are not prepared to speak to the Hamas-led Government. There is a big chunk of Hamas which, had we talked to it, would have been much more conducive to talking to and dealing with Israel. This is a solely self-inflicted wound for which we, the Europeans, Israel and America are almost solely to blame because of our ham-fisted intolerance of democratic government in that part of the world.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I believe it is wrong to suggest, as the noble Earl has done, that the international community's position on Hamas or funding of the Palestinian Authority has led to where we are today. Full responsibility lies with those who have chosen violence. As I explained earlier, we have been urging on the state of Israel the need to cease building the barrier on illegal land, to cease the illegal building of settlements and to repay the tax revenues that are due to the Palestinian people. We are aware of the urgent need for these things to be done.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not remarkable that despite the threat to Israel's life which has been issued by Hamas Israel is prepared to distribute medical supplies and foodstuffs? Is it not also remarkable that the Liberal spokesman did not utter one word of condemnation against Hamas, which has threatened the whole existence of Israel, and despite the facts I have mentioned?

Baroness Northover: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not prepared to give way.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is not on to intervene during questions because the time is so limited.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what is the Government's view on the cessation of hostilities which was promoted by Israel only yesterday?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I note all that my noble friend has said about the state of Israel and I do indeed think it is remarkable that when a state is under fire all the time from an enemy, it still wishes to discuss peace. However, as a responsible global state, it is right and proper for Israel to act accordingly. One has to bear in mind that Israel has responsibilities to which it is not living up; that is, the building of the barrier on illegal land and the building of illegal settlements. While I well understand Israel wishes to build a barrier, it must not do so on land which does legally belong to it.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the situation now facing the international community is a grim one and that some of the acts that have taken place in recent days are unpardonable, but that trying to allocate blame for what has happened is not the most useful thing to do? Can she tell us that under no circumstances will the Government favour, support or promote any solution that involves the recognition of or dealing with three separate entities and that they will remain firmly committed to a two-state solution? Further, if Israel gives back some of the tax revenues and the international community resumes a structured aid programme with the West Bank, will the Government discuss with President Abbas how it will be made possible for the portions of those moneys which rightfully belong to the inhabitants of Gaza to reach them, and will not simply favour the West Bank at the expense of Gaza?
	Will she also be very kind and think a littlefurther about the distinction between being prepared to talk to people and being prepared to support their governmental institutions with aid? Although I happen to think that the policies we have been pursuing up to now have been unwisely rigid with regard to aiding Hamas, I can frankly see no justification whatever for our refusal to discussthings with them. I think we are falling into the same trap as the United States Administration havedone with countries such as Iran in thinking that talking to people is somehow a concession you make in return for them making concessions to you. That is not the way diplomacy was practised when I was around.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that it is a grim situation and it is not useful to allocate blame. I am glad to note that the Arab League foreign ministers, when they met on15 June, agreed to support President Abbas. They condemned all parties to the violence of last week and they too refused to apportion blame.
	I confirm that the Government would not wish to have anything to do with a three-state solution, but are firmly supportive of a two-state solution. We have must have discussions about a mechanism to ensure that the necessary proportion of whatever money is repaid to the Palestinian people and President Abbas is given to the people in Gaza. With regard to our relationship with Hamas, I merely note what the noble Lord has said.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, may we have an assurance from the Minister that, whatever the Israelis say they will do, this country will independently monitor the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the West Bank and, if necessary, take independent action to make sure that the people in Gaza in particular are not starving? Will she also assure the House that, now that Israel—backed by the western Governments—has the Government it wants in the West Bank, we will see it obey UN resolutions, dismantle settlements and withdraw to behind the 1967 lines?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, this country, along with the global community, the EU and the UN, will monitor very carefully what is happening in Gaza because of that community's deep concern. We certainly would not take independent action, but we will watch closely to ensure that Israel is acting as it says it is. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that Israel respects the UN Security Council resolutions.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, it is all very well the Minister talking about putting pressure on the Israelis with regard to their record over the West Bank, but does she accept that, in the view of many people, one of the reasons we have come to this catastrophic situation is that over many decades the United States has applied a biased and unfair policy towards that part of the world in favour of Israel? Will the Government consider putting renewed pressure on the United States in the future to pursue a more balanced and understanding policy towards the dreadful situation in which we now find ourselves?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, all the partners in the quartet always strive to find a balanced situation so that the people of Israel can live side by side with the people of Palestine in a two-state solution. That is our intention, and it is what we will continue to work for.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while we all understand the history and the international context in which this latest crisis has arisen, it is an intra-Palestinian crisis, between two sets of Palestinians? Does she also agree that, despite some of the rather excitable language from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, many Arab states have had great distaste for dealing with Hamas? It has not been exclusively western or Israeli distaste; this issue has been discussed at the United Nations. The Arab states themselves have found it very difficult to deal with or support Hamas in the way we have heard the West should have done.
	Can my noble friend please tell us a little more about what happened at Friday's meeting of the Arab League Foreign Ministers in Cairo? She spoke of their support for President Abbas. Those of us who know Salam Fayed will want to support him; he is a good and just man, with no taint of any wrongdoing in the past. What constructive views have come out of the Arab states in their desire to deal with what is essentially an intra-Palestinian crisis?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very important basic point. This is indeed an intra-Palestinian crisis, and the fighting in Gaza is inter-factional.
	The Arab League agreed to establish a fact-finding committee, made up of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Qatar, to engage with the parties and report back in 48 hours. This, we believe, would serve to pressure the parties to return to the dialogue. However, 48 hours have passed, and we do not yet have any further information. When we receive it, I will inform noble Lords.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, was it not just a little perverse of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to makeno criticism whatever of Hamas and to criticise the West and the European Union, which has paid unprecedented sums to the Palestinian Authority? In the light of the initiative of the Arab League, is it the Government's view that any outside force has any serious leverage or influence over Hamas, be it the Arab League or individual Arab countries, which have had their own problems with Hamas?
	There have been reports that Hamas has threatened to storm the compound where it believes Alan Johnston is being held, which could cause grave problems and danger. Are the Government concerned about these reports, and what credence do they give them?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, my noble friend is right about the importance of the Arab League. We believe that it is through dialogue in the Arab League that real dialogue and reconciliationcan be brought about between Fatah and Hamas, because the Arab League, rightly, has much more influence than we have. Its members live in the region and are the most affected by the situation in the Middle East.
	I regret that I cannot comment on my noble friend's point about Alan Johnston, but we are doing everything possible to ensure that he is released swiftly and unharmed.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is appropriate to have a post mortem about the events leading to the collapse of the national unity Government? As I understand it, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, leading some Arab states, brokered this. There must be dismay that something has gone wrong in the understanding that other people had in welcoming the Saudi initiative a couple of months ago, which we all thought would lead to progress. We are back to the Sinn Fein analogy. Can my noble friend comment on the fact that, if the Arab states want closer co-operation in this respect with the European Union, the European Union should be ready to respond?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is of course important to examine what has happened and why, but, at this very moment we have to concentrate on the situation in Gaza and the humanitarian needs of its people. The economic situation of the Palestinian people is extremely important. We have been working, and will continue to work, to ensure that Palestine becomes a viable economy. Unless it does, it cannot be the strong partner that it needs to be to ensure a two-state solution. I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has been working on these issues.

Social Security, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2007

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon the Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on2 May (SI 2007/1331).

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I am pleased to move the Motion to revoke standing in my name on the Order Paper. I propose to confine my remarks to two separate areas and hope that I shall not detain the House too long.
	I hope that the ministerial team will agree that this is an important debate. It is necessary to give people who watch these matters outside this place comfort that the Government are taking careful note of everything being said and done, and that the elaborate and well established processes for consultation and scrutiny are being honourably used and considered in the Minister's department.
	There are important checks and balances on government powers. Ministers have profound powers to amend regulations, and they should do so only with appropriate care and concern. They should make changes only when their arguments are compelling and there is evidence that requires the change.
	The House owes a debt of gratitude to a series of stakeholders—to use that terrible jargon word—in these matters. The provenance of the regulations which the Government have brought before us is the Bhakta case and the judgment originally made by Mark Rowland, a distinguished commissioner. He, with all his experience, noticed a synergy with Regulation 13 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1992 in terms of the ability to make an advance claim and advance award within three months, subject to discretionand other considerations. Commissioner Rowland therefore allowed the advance claims test and award to be homologated into his decision in Bhakta.
	Having read through the papers at the weekend, I think that it is important to note that the case, which, in the way in which Commissioner Rowland brought it forward, provided an interesting conjunction of powers and events, was encouraged and supported by the Court of Appeal. I think that people would rather cut their grass at the weekend than study Court of Appeal judgments in some of these matters because the law is not easy—in this short debate I shall certainly not stray into habitual residence and the merits thereof at any great length, the Minister will be pleased to know. The Court of Appeal was very encouraging of Commissioner Rowland's approach. That influenced me, because the Court of Appeal is careful about how it supports or otherwise new developments that come to it from decisions made by commissioners at a lower level in the process.
	The Court of Appeal's judgment and consideration were supported by the consultees from whom the Social Security Advisory Committee solicited comments. There were not a huge number of respondent consultees, but they all sat neatly in line and in point with the decision by the commissioner and the resultant argument in the Court of Appeal.
	In addition, the Social Security Advisory Committee, a distinguished body of experts in this, with a positive relationship with the department—that is valued—took the view that there were arguments to be made with regard to the consultation that the department sponsored on these regulations. The committee found that the case was well founded. The new Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has done us all a service in drawing these regulations to our attention, and the House owes it a debt in that regard.
	I hope that the Minister is not surprised that this debate is happening tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, on the Conservative Party Front Bench, and I both came to the conclusion that there was something here to debate. If only he and I thought that, it would be quite important, but the people to whom I have just referred are all of the same view: that the regulation is otiose and unnecessary. It should be noted that in the whole scrutiny and consultation process the Government failed to win a single friend, which is significant. It does not always happen, though sometimes it does, but they are without friends in this case. The Government get high marks for going through the process. It was all done impeccably, but they did not win any of the arguments. The House should pay attention to that.
	It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government did not completely ignore what was said. That was very valuable, and it is important that the commitment to improve the information flow is applauded. That was absolutely right. An awful lot of false steps can be prevented at the appropriate time if information is provided—not just written information; sometimes it needs to be oral advice and support, too. Information is essential to ensure that people understand what is going on, because the regulations essentially affect people coming from outside the United Kingdom, who are sometimes a bit bewildered about all the circumstances in their life. Subjecting them to the rigours of the habitual residence test without support and help is unconscionable and I warmly welcome the statement that the Government have made in that regard.
	Not everyone studies these detailed areas of social policy law as closely as the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Official Opposition and my party, but advance awards are not common in any benefit and never have been. Regulation 13 was developed in the run-up to the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1992. That was done for the mutual benefit of the department and the claimants, at one and the same time. Those taking advantage of the provision would mainly be DLA-type claimants, when foreseeable circumstances can be seen changing clearly over a three-month period. The provision is now established, but it is a minor part of the provisions to support people in the benefit system.
	We do not know—the House may like to know, because it is a factor—but I strongly suspect that we are not talking about significant public expenditure, either direct or indirect, in opportunity costs, extra bureaucracy or anything of that kind. If I am wrong about that, I should like to be told. If the Minister does not have the information readily to hand, I am sure that both Front Benches would like more information on that. There cannot be many cases, and I do not think that it would cost a lot if this regulation were left unamended.
	The Minister himself has a role in this. I know that he has been snowed under with legislation, and I really do not envy him his task, but I hope that he is still there in a fortnight, otherwise we will have to start again with somebody different, and we do not want that to happen. If I can put in a word for him at any point, he just needs to give me a ring. Ministers have a role in this, because the policy-makers have a very different responsibility in the department for trying to keep things tidy, if I can put it that way and not be too pejorative. Ministers have a wider duty: they have to demonstrate good faith and act in the interests of claimants.
	It may be cheeky to say that this is one that I would have sent back, but it is a matter for the Minister and his conscience. Knowing him well enough, I know that he will have thought about it, but I think that he has got this wrong. I fear that, because people from abroad are such a sensitive subject, there may have been some pressure in the advice that he has had and that the tabloid press, which does not like people from abroad, may have had something to do with that. I hope that is not the case. The Minister will make his own arguments in a moment.
	I want to say two or three things about the merits of the legal case, because they are intrinsic to the decision facing the House this evening. I will not get drawn into the habitual residence test, because it is ineffably complicated; I do not think that would serve the interest of the House this evening. We are dealing with what Commissioner Rowland put his finger on when he asked whether "the mere passage of time" amounted to "a change of circumstances". I think he found correctly on that point. I do not think that the mere passage of time is necessarily a change in circumstances. That is what led him to homologate Regulation 13 into the Bhakta case, and that is why the Government decided to make the change that they have this evening. The Bhakta judgment determined that an advance award was not precluded for that reason, and that was sound reasoning.
	As the House may know, the habitual residence test involves two different elements. It must demonstrate settled intention to reside and an appreciable period of time. Those are easily understood Queen's English concepts, but at law they are endlessly contestable. The point that I want to make about the habitual residence test is that it is beyond doubt that a series of detailed personal individual circumstances have to be gone into. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I have only done one or two cases, because in my former constituency of south-east Scotland I never had a big caseload in this area. If all the facts of each individual case are relevant and necessary, a rigorous examination, which is already required for that reason, is perfectly capable of making a judgment about the potential for change over the next three-month period. That is basically what the Court of Appeal found, and that is why there has been so much opposition to the Government's move to revoke the regulations.
	There are three reasons why the department has said that the regulations must go in relation to people coming from abroad. First, they are too complicated. If they are too complicated for people from abroad, maybe they are just too complicated and maybe Regulation 13 needs to go. You cannot have it both ways and say that a DLA case can be foreseen over a three-month period but the case of someone coming from abroad is too complicated. I do not accept that reasoning. That is a judgment that must be made, but I have come down on the other side of the argument from the Government, if that is one of their arguments.
	The second case that is made is that decision-makers cannot speculate. I know enough about the DWP to know that there is a specialist unit of people who do this difficult work. They have been trained over many years—since 1992—to do this important work. This is not a question of anyone in any part of the United Kingdom suddenly being faced with this. It is specialist work and in the cases that I know about it has been handled with expertise and great sensitivity. It is not uniquely difficult to predict what will happen over the next three months in any case. Particularly in habitual residence cases, the prospect is entirely within the competence of the professionals who are already doing the work in the department. In any case, the Court of Appeal found that the test was reasonable foreseeability. There is no certainty and there can be no guarantees, because people's circumstances change endlessly. For that reason, to say that decision makers cannot speculate is a very weak argument.
	Finally, the department is founding its case on the fact that there would be a greater propensity for fraud. I do not know where the evidence for that is, either way. If we are going to take that kind of approach for regulations of this kind—that it might lend itself more to abuse—I cannot for the life of me fathom why that should be the case. Again, if I am missing something, I would really like to hear some substance to that argument. I saw the statement made in the papers of the SSAC consultation, but I saw nothing that supported it to any extent that gave me pause for thought.
	Most significantly—I ask the Minister to take this away and to think about it—Regulation 13 seems to bestow a "discretionary power". Both of those words are important. It is possible for the decision maker to say, "Yes, in three months' time or within that period you will achieve eligibility". But when that day dawns, without any more due process and without recourse to further inquiries or anything else, if the circumstances have changed—and there is an onus on the claimant to report such changes—it is possible for the same decision maker to say, "No, I have changed my mind". This is not something that gives the game away and cannot be retrieved without a heavy reinvestment of bureaucratic administrative time, it is a discretionary power that is capable of being used by the decision maker and could be used without let or hindrance if he felt that a mistake had been made and that circumstances had changed.
	The department must be very careful that people will not say that it just cannot be bothered anymore with such decisions, that it is all a hassle and that the people in the department are thinking nothing other than, "This is too much trouble, let's just get rid of it". I do not believe that, but that is what people are starting to say. It is a potential reputational issue for the department if serious stakeholders are beginning to say that. There are those who say that that is happening because we are dealing with people from the furth of the United Kingdom and we are discriminating against them. That is not part of my case, but it is what people are saying and that should be of concern to the Government.
	At the end of the day, the Child Poverty Action Group, which has studied these matters more closely than the rest of us, says that welfare rights advice will change if this Motion is not accepted and the Government stick to their proposal. The advice to people will be, "If you do not have access to the advance claim provisions in future, we advise you to claim every week; and every time that claim is rejected, appeal until a significant period has passed". There will be weekly claims and, when they are rejected, weekly appeals. How that would help anyone in terms of the bureaucracy within the DWP defeats me completely. This is a counterproductive regulation. I can see no substance in the Government's argument and I look forward to what they say in their defence.
	Moved to resolve, That this House calls upon the Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 2 May (SI 2007/1331). 21st Report from the Merits Committee.—(Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope.)

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for placing this short debate in its historical context. The Merits Committee does important work and when it brings secondary legislation to our attention, it is generally for a very good reason.
	This Government have promoted a great many Bills in the past decade that give Secretaries of State extensive powers to make regulations—so much so, that secondary legislation is now often the means by which new policy is announced, rather than merely implemented. Nowhere is that more true than in work and pensions, as the great complexity of the benefit system provides the Government with a fertile field for seeking enabling powers on the grounds of flexibility and responsiveness. This makes it a matter of concern when the Government do not accept a committee's recommendation. In this case, it is the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has recommended that these regulations are unnecessary and even counter-productive. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a full account of the reasons behind their decision to ignore this advice.
	There is indeed a great need for flexibility in the application of benefit law. Too much control from the centre can make the benefit system prescriptive and unresponsive to the needs of the very people whom it is intended to help. I am worried that this Government's instinct in this case has the effect of reducing the scope of a decision-maker to exercise their discretion in this matter.
	In paragraph 27 of the Government's response, they say that there has been inconsistency in how the provisions have been applied since the court judgment. The habitual residency test is indeed a complicated matter, but should the Government not be ensuring that their decision-makers are sufficiently trained to make complex decisions such as this? It should not be beyond the capabilities of a Government to produce guidance for them that can be consistently employed. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, drew the House's attention to the high skill base of decision-makers in this area. The Government should not be taking away a power that could do much, when properly exercised, to help a claimant just because the Government have failed to invest sufficient thought into how the power should be exercised.
	However, this is not the only reason that the Government have given for disagreeing with the committee's recommendation. Another reason that they gave is that allowing an advance claim opens up the benefit system to increased fraud. Will the Minister explain why the Government have come to the conclusion that there would be a significant effect? I have not come across any evidence in any of the material on these regulations that would indicate this. In fact, the Government's responses seem to be based on very little evidence of any sort. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that these regulations are, in fact, based on thoughtful analysis of the issue rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the Court of Appeal decision.
	The Government also claim that the power to make an advance claim would open the door to repeated appeals against the decision-maker, should he or she refuse to allow it in a particular case. This statement cannot hold water. As the name suggests, a decision-maker's function is to make decisions. Why would the decision to refuse an advance claim be any more likely to provoke an appeal than any other? Is there any evidence to show that refusals to allow an advance claim for a benefit such as the disability living allowance are appealed against at a greater rate than other decisions? Given that the Child Poverty Action Group's advice to claimants attempting to pass the habitual residence test is to make repeated claims and appeals until the requirements are met, sensible use of these powers would surely reduce the caseload.
	These regulations cover a matter of great complexity. It is unfortunate that there does not seem to be much data on which to base an informed decision. I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that he can answer my questions as well as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. A full answer would do much to address my concerns about these regulations.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of this debate and the chance to explain, from the Government's perspective, the need to remove the habitual residence test from the scope of the advance claims regulations.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, this is an important debate. I agree that it is right that we should be subject to parliamentary challenge on these matters. I accept that the change in the regulations is made in a way that is contrary to the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Court of Appeal decision. I should perhaps stress up-front that the regulations do not change the rules for eligibility at all; nor do they change the effective date from which a claim can properly operate. They concern a denial of administrative easement in circumstances where we would argue that that opportunity creates more administrative problems than it solves. Therefore, they do not fundamentally change the eligibility rules or the date from which a claim can operate.
	The regulations before noble Lords affect the treatment of people from abroad when they claim an income-related benefit such as income support or state pension credit. They particularly concern the requirement that such claimants must be habitually resident in this country before they can become eligible for the benefits. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, outlined, the key factor in deciding whether a person is habitually resident is whether he has demonstrated that he has a settled intention to reside and whether he has been resident for an appreciable period of time. What amounts to a settled intention and an appreciable period of time depends on the circumstances of each case.
	The regulations are needed to restore the manner in which this test operated before a Court of Appeal judgment last year, which ruled that these cases could benefit from a separate provision concerning advance claims. The provision in question was introduced to allow decision-makers to decide benefit entitlement in advance of a predictable future event. The advance claims provisions are a very useful administrative tool. They operate to the benefit of both customers and staff and avoid claims being disallowed and the claimant having to submit another claim when entitlement arises.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, suggested that advance claims are uncommon. In fact, they go back to at least 1987, although an extension to the provisions was made in 1992. They are more common than the noble Lord may think: nearly every claim for state retirement pension, for example, is made in advance.
	The noble Lord asked about expenditure. We agree that small amounts of expenditure are involved in this matter, but they relate to administrative costs rather than entitlement and the quantum of benefit.
	These provisions are among several which provide that particular benefits may be claimed in advance of the beginning of entitlement. A good example is when a person claims state pension four months before reaching pension age. It would be absurd to require him to reclaim on the date that he reached pension age when the date was already fixed and certain at the time of the first claim. Another example is where an expectant mother is allowed to claim maternity allowance 14 weeks before the expected week of confinement. Both those are predictable events. By contrast, deciding whether a person is habitually resident requires the decision-maker to weigh a variety of less certain factors in determining the degree to which the claimant has put down roots. The decision-maker would frequently have to speculate to an unreasonable degree as to whether the claimant's intention to remain had been sustained long enough to constitute habitual residence.
	Again, I should clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about the specialist units involved in this matter. A specialist unit looks at the right-to-reside requirement, which is one of the prerequisites of entitlement, but the second stage of the test—the habitual residence test—is dealt with by decision-makers generally.
	Moreover, the claimant's circumstances could change between the date of the decision and the date by which the test had been predicted to be met. People change their minds: they may have grown homesick and want to return to their country of origin, or their family circumstances may have changed, requiring them to cut short their stay here. To prevent abuse, we would have to review their circumstances again just before benefit was paid. This review would not always be a simple matter of checking a few straightforward facts; in many instances, it would entail a thorough check that the claimant really had maintained a settled intention to live in this country. In practice, that would cover the same ground as the decision-making arrangements we want, but with added complexity because of the doubtful speculation added through the use of the advance claim provisions.
	I grant that the habitual residence test is complex. It is complex because habitual residence is not a simple concept. It would be wrong to predict the future existence of this complex state of affairs with the aid of a regulatory easement designed to anticipate something as predictable as the attainment of pension age or the birth of a child.
	The Government's intention is quite clear: a person from abroad who claims an income-related benefit should demonstrate that they have a settled intention to live in the UK and that that settled intention has been sustained over an appreciable period of time. Only then can the person be said to be habitually resident. While a person can demonstrate an intention to settle in the UK, they have not at that point made any ties or lasting connections with the UK and are not habitually resident here. Use of the advance claims procedures to decide a future date when a person could be habitually resident is contrary to that policy intention.
	As noble Lords are aware, the Government consulted on these regulations and have given very careful consideration to the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation not to proceed with the regulations. However, for the reasons I have set out, we believe that, to continue to protect the integrity of the benefit system, it is reasonable to expect a person who fails the test for whatever reason to make a fresh claim to benefit.
	We believe that the advance claim provisions relating to income-related benefits should be applied on the basis of predictable events. The amendment restored that intention by removing the habitual residence test from the scope of the advance claims provisions. However, the Government are concerned that some claimants who initially fail the test are not informed to make a fresh claim to benefit. We intend to carry out a review of customer information and communications to ensure that claimants are made aware of the implications of failing the test. It is against that background and the Court of Appeal decision that these regulations have been laid before Parliament.
	I shall try to pick up some of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised the issue of the mere passage of time and whether that is a change of circumstances. The Bhakta case says that it is theoretically possible that a future date of entitlement is predictable. However, given the complexity of the habitual residence test, we think it unlikely that that would apply in many cases.
	The noble Lord also asked why a decision-maker would speculate on such decisions and said that there is no difference from other advance claims. Habitual residence decisions are subjective in nature and require decision-makers to make a judgment about a person's circumstances since arriving in the UK. The Government believe that decision-makers would have to move into the realm of unacceptable speculation to establish a future date when someone would be habitually resident, particularly when they might have the opportunity of seeing what had actually happened to someone who had been resident for a period of time, which is another leg of the test.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that one result of that is that people will encourage claimants to make weekly claims until one is accepted. It would be incredibly irresponsible for people to suggest they should do that. I do not honestly believe that people advising claimants would act in that way.
	The noble Lord also said that there is no difference between these decisions and, say, a decision on DLA. Of course, DLA cases require the disability criteria to be satisfied for three months before entitlement can begin. So if it is satisfied for one month, for example, the decision-maker can say, "I'll treat the claim as beginning in two months' time". We are dealing here with objective facts.
	The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Taylor, raised the issue of fraud. Although there are built-in protections, there are other factors that the Government believe will, without amendment of the legislation, lead to more instances of fraud and overpayment. In practice, a person who is receiving benefit at regular intervals is often more aware of his or her responsibility to report a relevant change of circumstances than a person not yet receiving any benefit. Where a person arrives in the UK, claims benefit and then leaves within a short period, it is not uncommon for there to be scope for overpayments to accrue, and they do not report the fact that they have left the UK. There is a difference between people in receipt of benefit who recognise that a change of circumstances has to be reported and where there is a prospective receipt of benefit—a decision made in advance of when that benefit will become payable. Changes of circumstances in the interim are less likely to be routinely reported by the would-be claimant.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pressed me on the role of Ministers in all this. The person who has primary policy responsibility in the area is my honourable friend James Plaskitt. This was a government decision taken in the light of sound advice, giving due account to the facts and opinions put before us.
	I hope that I have dealt with each point that noble Lords raised. This has been an important opportunity to debate the matter. I reject any assertion that anything to do with this is meant to be discriminatory to people coming from abroad, because the provisions apply equally to UK nationals who return to the UK. I stress again that they affect neither entitlement to benefit one iota, nor the effective date from which that entitlement can run. They are to do with administrative procedures, and we are changing them because of the difficulties of requiring an advance look at a test on which one has to draw conclusions and make predictions when looking at one's current circumstances. The habitual residence test depends on a range of things—an individual's engagement with the labour market, their circumstances, their family circumstances in the UK, their connections elsewhere, the basis on which they came to the UK, their accommodation, what has happened to the accommodation that they left abroad and so on. To try to predict in advance the point at which one could say that there was a settled intention to remain in the UK is difficult and unnecessary.
	I conclude by reminding the House of the purpose of the regulations. They will preserve the safe operation of the habitual residence test by excluding it from the advance claim provisions. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords, but I am happy to try to answer further questions.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I will think carefully and reflect on the Minister's speech tomorrow in Hansard, because it will repay careful study. I cannot resist the comment that the point about Mr James Plaskitt towards the end sounded very much like a plea of alibi.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords—

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I was being facetious, my Lords.
	There is no conflict in the facts. I understand everything that the Minister said; nothing that he said was particularly new to me. Both he and Mr Plaskitt have responsibility to watch carefully the consequences of the change. With my usual rhetorical flourish, I was saying that once a week people would be advised to make claims, and of course they will not be. However, how does someone test when they pass the appreciable "period of time" test if they do not make regular and repeated applications?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that the claimant is in a far better position to judge their settled intention than the decision-maker, who has to try to predict without the claimant's fundamental knowledge?

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, that is not right, because of the legal tests applied. The decision-maker is in possession of the information and has the responsibility for making the decision. He has the rules and guidance, and is in a much better position. One of the eligibility criteria is a settled wish to remain, and that is either in the mind of the applicant or not. An appreciable period of time can vary dramatically according to the facts and circumstances of each case. I do not know how a welfare rights worker could test the fact that that appreciable period of time criterion has been passed without making an application.
	I made the point about weekly claims rather glibly, but I am convinced that the number of applications will increase. If the Government are intent on doing this—which they are, and it is clear that they will get this regulation this evening—they must monitor the consequences of this change and the extent to which what flows from it is an exponential increase in claimants in those circumstances.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that these regulations put the position back to where we believed it was and to how it operated before the Bhakta case? We know how it operated before that case and the regulations are just taking us back there.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, that is a different point. Commissioner Rowland saw the possibility of getting an easement in a different area of the territory. That was identifying the synergy and was entirely positive. It is obvious that the Government think differently, and that is fine. There is a dispute not about the facts but about the consequences and whether we are walking away from an opportunity to make the claims of those who come from furth of the United Kingdom easier in terms of the habitual residence test. History will show whether the Minister is right or we on this side of the House are right. We have had a good discussion. I understand the position but I am not persuaded.
	I do not think it would do the House any service at this stage to do anything other than to withdrawthe Motion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at 7.57 pm.